If you are still interested in what Mr. Escultura has to say or just want a good laugh, please read Abe's blog. Please note that Abe has also found a new story from the Manila Times that Mr. Escultura has been nominated for the Nobel Prize, presumably in Physics as there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics. A quick look in the Nobel Prize website states that:

"information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years"so we cannot verify if Mr. Escultura has or has not been nominated.

Abe is of the opinion that the story from the Manila Times has Mr. Escultura as their only source and I agree with him. The Manila Times have not learned to verify stories submitted to them by one Edgar Escultura.

For example, a quick look at the website of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and their membership list will tell us that they have no members named Johannes Hieber nor Lars Jonhagen. There were nobody surnamed Jonhagen nor Hieber though they have 2 members named Johannes and 32 named Lars. You can try the exercise by going to this site

http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/eng/academy/members/search.asp

Update 6/20/2005

Just read the comments section of Alecks Pabico's blog on EEE and he has already done the checks on the people who supposedly nominated EEE for the Nobel Prize. He has contacted at least one of them. Read the latest developments in the comments section of Alecks Pabicos original story.

## 9 comments:

"information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years"

Actually, Roy, that would seem to be definitive proof that the report of his nomination is fake.

Yes, you're probably right. I just can't get over the Manila Times' abdication of their duty as journalists.

I'm sorry that I sometimes write in Filipino, when I am upset, i need to vent using my native tounge.

If haven't noticed, my first post on the Escultura affair was also written in Filipino. :)

No need to appologize for that, Roy. What the heck, this is your home on the internet, and you can write in whatever language you want.

I received an email dated June 20, 2005 from Dr. Jonas Forare, science editor and press officer of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences replying to my inquiry (and that of Dewey Yoseph Yap) regarding the claim by Dr. Escultura that two "members" of the Academy, Johannes Hieber and Lars Jonhagen, nominated him for the Nobel Prize for Physics.

As we've suspected all along, Hieber and Jonhagen are bogus.

Below is Dr. Forare's email reply:

Dear Dewey Yoseph Yap and Alecks P. Pabico,

No, neither a Lars Jonhagen nor a Johannes Hieber are members of the Royal Swedish A cademy of Sciences.(emphasis mine)The nominations are secret for 50 years, and none of the Nobel Committee members would ever comment on ongoing nominations. But from time to time people who have been invited to nominate leak to the press about whom they've proposed.

The deadline for nominations for this year’s prizes was February 1st . A new round, for next year’s prize, starts in September 2005.

Read more about the nomination procedure and who are invited to nominate at:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/nomination/index.html

Yours sincerely,

Jonas Förare

.......................................................................

Jonas Förare, PhD

Vetenskapsredaktör, pressansvarig/ Science editor, Press officer

Kungl. Vetenskapsakademien/ The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Box 50005

SE-104 05 Stockholm

SWEDEN

Phone +46 8 673 95 44, fax +46 8 673 95 83, mobil 0703-27 72 00

e-post: jonas@kva.se

Internet: www.kva.se

You are all wrong, EE has posted a new entry on his website saying

"Gentlemen/Madames,

For those who missed my recent statement, allow me to state it again.

The Nobel nomination is on. My previous assessment that it was a hoax was wrong. The error was stems from a conspiracy to make me believe that it was a haox. I hsve since then been contacted by my nominators to explain the situation and confirm my nomination.

E. E. Escultura"

and then he posts this shocking revelation

"In fairness to the 100-member faculty of the University of the Philippines Mathematics Department which had been unfairly dragged into notoriety, I would like to share excerpts from a recent private entry on my website:

“…I am concerned of certain rumors in the Academy that pressure has been put by the University of the Philippines Math Department to strike your nomination. I have received, as have many members of the academy who support you, very strongly worded letters on why you should not receive the Nobel Prize. I am also sickened that the Philippine media has been harshly asking for interviews regarding the Nobel "Hoax".”

Just like the letter sent to the Philippine Collegian and the UP Newsletter this one is unsigned. It is the brainchild of two faculty members. It was circulated in the Math Department but not a single faculty member signed.

The “Philippine Media” is really PCIJ.

What a stigma on the University, the Philippine Media and the country.

E. E. Escultura"

shame on you all for putting down perhaps a brilliant scientist

For confirmation of my nomination visit the the Science and Technology website,

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/

Dec132005/snt1734020051212.asp

Information about the nomination is leaked to specific media network by the nominators on purpose for specific reason. The nominators do not use their real names, of course. The letter from the UP Math Department was unsigned but it was relayed to me by a member of the selection committee in a private entry on my guest book. More insights on the nomination process including my case is found in the Science and Technology website.

E. E. Escultura

Here's an excerpt from the article on the Nobel nomination article at the Science and Technology website:

Most recent is the case of Professor Eddie Escultura, from the Philippines, a great mathematical brain who contributed something novel in the field of quantum physics. He was considered for the Nobel this year by the committee only to be rejected in favour of Professor Glauber. But the developments following this would reveal the sickness that has afflicted the Nobel committee. Professor Gerholms, an eminent physicist on the Nobel committee resigned from the committee to protest the dropping of Eddie. He goes one step further. In a personal letter to Prof. Escultura, Prof Gerholms wrote as to what went on inside the committee room and named two prominent members of the committee lobbying for their candidates. Gerholms in his resignation letter wrote to the committee that lobbying is highly objectionable inside the Nobel committee. Bold man indeed!

E. E. Escultura

Here are some important points about the

new real number system.

1) In both the real and new real number

systems the only well-defined decimals are

the terminating ones; the nonterminating

decimals are simply arrays of digits

most of which are unknown.

2) In the new real number system the

nonterminating decimals are defined, for the

the first time, in terms of the terminating

decimals R as follows:

a) Consider the sequence of terminating

decimals of the form,

N.a1, N.a1a2, …, N.a1a2…an, …; (1)

the sequence (1) is called standard

generating or g-sequence. Its nth g-term,

N.a1a2…an, which is a terminating decimal,

defines and approximates the g-limit, the

nonterminating decimal,

N.a1a2…an…, (2)

at margin of error (maximum error) 10–n.

b) If the nth digit of the g-limit (2) is not 0

for all n beyond a certain integer k then (2)

defines a nonterminating decimmal.

Note that the nth g-term repeats all the

previous digits of the decimal in the same

order so that if finite terms of the g-sequence

are deleted, the nonterminating decimal it

defines, i.e., its g-limit, remains unaltered.

c) In analysis we define limit in terms of

some norm. We define the g-norm of a

nonterminating decimal as the decimal

itself so that the g-limt is also defined in

terms of the g-norm. Computation with the

g-norm has advantages one of which being

that the result is obtained directly as a

decimal digit by digit so that the

intermediate steps of approximation is

avoided.

3) Consider the sequence of decimals,

(d)na1a2…ak, n = 1, 2, …, (3)

where d is any of the decimals,

0.1, 0.2, 0.3, …, 0.9, and a1, …, ak

finite basic integers (not all 0 simultaneously).

For each combination of d and the ajs,

j = 1, …, k, in (3) the nth term, which

we now refer to as the nth d-term of

this nonstandard d-sequence, is not a

decimal since the digits are not fixed.

As n increases indefinitely it traces the

tail digits of some nonterminating

decimal (note that the nth g-term recedes

to the right with increasing n), becomes

smaller and smaller until it becomes

indistinguishable from the tail digits of the

other decimals. We call the sequence (3)

nonstandard d-sequence since the nth term

is not a standard g-term but has a standard

limit, i.e., limit in the standard norm, which

is 0. Like the g-limit, the d-limit exists since

it is defined by its nonstandard d-sequence

of terminating decimals; we call it a dark

number d’, the d-limit of the nonstandard d-

sequence (3). Moreover, while the nth term

becomes smaller and smaller with increasing

n it is greater than 0 no matter how large n is

so that if x is any decimal, 0 < d < x. The set

of d limits of all nonstandard d-sequences is

the dark number d*

4) We state some important results:

Theorem. The d-limits of the tail digits of

all the nonterminating decimals traced by

the nth d-terms of the d-sequence (3) form

the continuum d*.

Theorem. In the lexicographic ordering R

consists of adjacent predecessor-successor

pairs of decimals (each joined by d*) so

that the closure R* in the g-norm is a

continuum.

Note that the trichotomy axiom follows

from the lexicographic ordering of R*

which is not defined on the real numbers

since nonterminating decimals are not

well-defined there.

Corollary. R* is non-Archimedean and

non-Hausdorff but the decimals are

Archimedean and Hausdorff in the standard

norm.

Theorem. The rationals and irrationals are

separate, i.e., they are not dense in their union

(this is the first indication of discreteness

of the decimals).

Theorem. The largest and smallest elements

of R* in the open interval (0,1) are 0.99… and

1 – 0.99…, respectively; note that d* = 1 – 0.99…

Theorem. An even number greater than 2

is the sum of two prime numbers.

(This post is excerpted from my keynote

address at the 5th World Congress of

Nonlinear Analysts, The Mathematics of

the Grand Unified Theory, July 5, 2008,

Orlando, Florida, to appear in Nonlinear

Analysis, Series A, Theory, Methods and

Applications)

E. E. Escultura

Echos from yesteryears.

There is crack somewhere:

While it is known that the Committee deliberations on the Nobel Prize are kept secret for 50 years some people are looking for the names Hieber and Jonjagen in the list of members of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences.

E. E. Escultura

Post a Comment