Monday, June 20, 2005

Escultura Resurrected

While reading through the pcij blog for the latest on the gloria tapes when I noticed in the trackback section a new posting on Edgar Escultura as documented by Abe, at the Don't Let Me Stop You blog.

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:

Abe said...

"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.

roy choco said...

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. :)

Abe said...

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.

Alecks said...

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

Escultura Admirer said...

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

E. E. Escultura said...

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

E. E. Escultura said...

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

Edgar said...

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

Edgar said...

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