Thursday, August 25, 2005

Changing his mind

I got this comment from "Escultura Admirer" and I want to thank him for updating me on the latest developments with Prof. Escultura. I wanted more details so I went to Prof. Escultura's guest book and here is what I found.

On Tuesday 07/05/2005 5:23:50pm, a Mr. Roehlano M. Briones, wrote to Prof. Escultura this letter:
"I have attempted to confirm your story about the Nobel Prize nomination reported in Manila Times and found some anomalies.

I did a search for "Hieber" and "Jonhasen" in the Royal Swedish Academy website:

I got no hits. Nor do I find the names by checking one-by-one.

Furthermore information from the Nobel Prize website on nominations is clear:

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

Information about nomination, etc. is kept secret for FIFTY YEARS. Only the winner is informed of the outcome.

Kindly send me your clarification by e-mail. Thank you."
Prof. Escultura responded
"Yes, it is a hoax and I have a statement about it in the Manila Times.

Thanks."
On Wednesday 07/06/2005 0:31:42am, a Mr. Benjamin Flores inquired
"Dear Professor,

Now that you have personally admitted as a hoax your "awards", I would like to know when the Manila Times will retract its articles and issue an apology for their flawed reporting?

best intentions,"
For which Prof Escultura replied
"The Manila Times will have my statement Thursday. E. E. Escultura"
Apprently, the letter did not get published because on Thursday 07/07/2005 4:08:13pm, Benjamin Flores again wrote to Prof. Escultura:
"Dear Professor,

The Thursday edition of Manila Times did not carry your statement.
------------
Did you actually win the Carl Gauss medal and the Michel Prize as well or was that also part of the hoax?"
The reply was
"The Times has not yet published my statement. It might appear on the same day the nobel article appeared. No independent verification of Gauss but appears to be independent. Michel Prize there is continuing dialogue with me and I have made the last requirement Tuesday. One of members involved in this project is a victim of the hoax.

E. E. Escultura"
Then on Friday 07/22/2005 3:40:55pm Richard Viejo asked
"Dear Professor,

I have an impressionable nephew who studies in Kalayaan College. Would you be so kind to let us know when your retraction will come out in the Manila Times?

Sincerely"
Things stood like this until on Tuesday 08/02/2005 7:31:11pm, Professor Escultura wrote
"Dear Mr. Viejo,

There is no need for rebraction. Everything is GO and will be known in due time.

E. E. Escultura"
So there it is, Prof. Escultura's belief that the nobel nomination is a hoax lasted for less than 30 days. And how come he came to believe that it was a hoax? The latest entry in his guest book explains
"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"
Prf. Escultura Apparently missed this quote from Mr. Briones' letter
"Furthermore information from the Nobel Prize website on nominations is clear:

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

Information about nomination, etc. is kept secret for FIFTY YEARS. Only the winner is informed of the outcome."
Prof. Escultura, unless you won, you are not supposed to know you were even nominated. That you are being informed by your "nominators" that you are nominated is a CLUE that it is a hoax. Please check more carefully.

p.s.

I want to thank Mr. Briones, Mr. Flores, Mr. Viejo and Mr. Reynold (whose letter I did not quote here) for their efforts to set the record straight on this matter even venturing within Prof. Escultura's guest book. To his credit, Prof. Escultura has been very open to all comers in his guest book, and does not seem to censor any of the posts even if the comments are against him.

Update:
Escultura Admirer has pointed out that Prof. Esculura has edited out from his guestbook the comments EA quoted regarding the PCIJ and UP. If EEE does not edit comments from othe people, it would seem that he does edit at least his own writings.

New Update:

I browsed EEE's site and I found out that the EA's quote is still there it's located not in EEE's guestbook but in his message board.

As I was browsing the message board I came upon this entry
Dear friends and colleagues,

I just had a conference with Andrew Wiles arranged by Dr. J-L Raymond of Luynes University, France (who awarded me the Michel Prize). He said he agreed with me but wanted more clarification as he is preparing to respond to my detractors. I shall publish the transcript of the conference in my journal in January for historical purposes.

E. E. Escultura
This message was posted by EEE July 12, 2005 at 7:02 PM. I wonder what kind of conference it was. And why should the transcripts be published only in January?

His admission of the Nobel Prize nomination is a hoax can also be seen there

15 comments:

escultura admirer said...

Professor Escultura has taken out his scathing post against PCIJ and the UP Math Department.

roy choco said...

thanks

Abe said...

Roy,

Part of me sees EEE as the "gift that keeps on giving." His story is just that "luyne-y" :)

It does look like he believes these awards are genuine, though, which is sad.

E. E. Escultura said...

Deccan Herald » Science & Technology » Detailed Story Dec. 13, 2005
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/Dec132005/snt1734020051212.asp



Nobility of the Nobel prize

By B M Hegde
Many who deserved the Nobel prize did not get it.


How noble is the Nobel Prize? I was pleased to read in one of our English dailies an open letter written by ten noted physicists to the Nobel committee protesting the exclusion of Prof EVG (George) Sudarshan from this year’s Nobel in physics while giving it to Prof Glauber. I feel they are fully justified in doing so as Sudarshan richly deserved this honour much before Glauber.

The Nobel tradition has been like that all through if one looked at the history of Nobel Prizes ever since Alfred Nobel, who made his millions by selling dynamite, had a heart transformation following a devastating fire in his own factory. He then realised, for the first time, that it is in giving that one gets. He gave all to establish this great tradition of honouring great brains in several fields. The list got expanded after some years with more money coming in. Respice to prospice — let us look back to look forwards. Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of peace, never got the Nobel Peace Prize, while some confirmed criminals got the same for their heart transformation in their evening of life (vridda naari pathivritaa).

Wagner Juregg got the Nobel for medicine in 1927. He claimed, in a “scientific” paper that he had invented the fever therapy for successfully treating the most dreaded disease of those days, General Paresis of the Insane (GPI), a miserable complication of the then king of diseases, syphilis. Just as any one worth his salt that “researches” AIDS today gets a large booty of the $ 8 billion of the NIH research grant money, people were venerated when they talked about syphilis those days.



Be that as it may, let us go back to our friend Wagner Juregg. His name came up before the Nobel committee in 1926. Gladius, a physician member of the Nobel committee that year knew that Juregg did not invent anything new. It was Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine, in 100 BC that introduced fever therapy to medicine. Juregg tried to inject malaria parasite into GPI victims in mental hospitals to see if the very high fever that malaria parasites produce could kill the treponema pallidum, the fearsome germ of syphilis, which people normally acquire through sexual intercourse. Six of the one hundred patients thus injected improved clinically and more than fifty of them died (not reported in the paper) of malaria as Europeans do not have racial immunity against falciparum malaria.

Gladius could thus avert a tragedy in 1926. Gladius told the committee that Juregg ought to be tried in a criminal court instead for killing that many patients out of the one hundred that he used for his experiments! There were no ethical committees those days! But read on to know that Wagner Juregg got the Nobel Prize the following year after Gladius died providentially of a massive heart attack in 1926.

There are exceptions and many good deserving people did get the Nobels. One of them was my teacher, Bernard Lown, who deserved the Nobel for his invention — the Lown’s defibrillator — the machine that saves many lives in the emergency room after cardiac arrest. But what he did get was the Nobel Peace Prize instead much later. He founded the Physicians Against Nuclear War (PANW) in 1974 and fought against the might of the US war lords to prevent further nuclear stockpiling and was instrumental in getting the Russian communists to talk to American capitalists. He was mainly responsible for preventing America dumping its plutonium waste in a small island off the west coast of Africa.

The ones left out

The numbers that were cheated in this process are too many to enumerate. However, a few deserve to be mentioned for their great contributions in different fields of human endeavour for which they richly deserved the Nobel.

John OM Bockris is a distinguished Emeritus professor of chemistry at the A&M University in Texas. He is the father of “cold fission” — nuclear fusion occurring in a laboratory test tube! He was ridiculed, persecuted but he survived all that. He was cheated of the Nobel despite several nominations over the decades! Professor Rustom Roy, Evan Pugh Professor of material sciences (and many other professorships) at the Penn State University is the world’s top material scientist. His laboratory is considered the leader. He invented the “sol-gel” technique that is used even today to extract nano-particles. He should be rightly called the father of nanotechnology. He was nominated a dozen times for the Nobel without the committee selecting him. His technique is the one that scientists use even today, though.

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!

Another distinguished Indian mathematician, Professor Lakshmikantham of the Florida Institute of Technology, whose original work in the field of non-linear analysis has taken him to the top in the world of mathematics also falls into this category of losers. He was rejected several times. One could go on and on. I have come to one conclusion that where there are men manning any organisation, including governments, morality and authenticity would be the casualties. Poor Alfred Nobel did not know that it would have been better to have the Nobel committee of laws rather than of men.

“Men, whether in palace or pad; castle or cottage”, are governed by the same emotions and passions. Winston Churchill was dead right when he said that “it is better to deserve than to get.” All the losers mentioned above and the countless others who have “wasted their sweetness in the desert air” (including the one Indian who keeps telling me that he should have got the Nobel in his field) could take heart from the knowledge that it is better that they deserved the Nobel much more than many around them that managed to bag the prize.
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/
Dec132005/snt1734020051212.asp

E. E. Escultura said...

PUTTING THE INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS IN ITS PLACE

In 2005 the Philippine Collegian published the article, STATEMENT FROM THE UP MATHEMATICS DEPARTMMENT, attacking me personally for my work in mathematics and physics the argument based on wrong information and ignorance of mathematics and physics. Fortunately, the Philippine Collegian which adheres to journalistic ethics published my reply, TOTAL IGNORANCE OF FUNDAMENTALS. This cannot be said of the UP Newsletter which published the same statement but did not publish my reply revealing itself as a gossip sheet after all. My mole at the Department told me that the Chairman tried to solicit signatures for the statement from its over 100 faculty members but got only 7 signatures the reason it was published anonymously.

Then in March 2008 another online article, Personal Statement from UPD, was addressed to me, again, attacking my work by repeating the same arguments but this time focusing on my resolution of Fermat’s last theorem.

Now there is a post in WikiPilipinas, again, addressed to me and attacking my work by repeating the same arguments that I have already resoundingly demolished on many websites. WikiPilipinas, by the way, publishes outright lies about Filipino inventors who have long passed away. It made a blunder, however, by publishing lies about me, the Manny Pacquiao of Science and Mathematics with Teflon world academic stature.

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura
(continued)

Anonymous said...

Putting the Institute of Mathematics in its Right Place (continued)

These online articles by IM amount to a tiny squeak behind the thousands of articles, posts and commentaries on my work on several dozen websites not to mention my over 50 scientific papers in many peer reviewed international scientific journals, keynote addresses at world congresses and international conferences, books and chapters of some books. My work has been extensively debated across cyberspace since 1997 and not a single hole has been punched on it. All arguments against my work have been thoroughly demolished including these feeble attempts by the Institute. Samples of the latest punches can be viewed at these websites:

(1) False Proofs, http://falseproofs.blogspot.com/2006/06/e-e-escultura.html
(2) Free Library, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/E.+E.+Escultura/Contributed-a274787
(3) New Approach to Physics, under ISCID topic Brainstorms (5 pages):
(a) http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000607-p-5.html
(b) http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000607.html

If these feeble attempts by the Institute are a tiny squeak, why take notice?

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura
(continued)

E. E. Escultura said...

One reason is to take note of a new trick proudly discovered by the Institute: creating the link, http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=User:Eescultura, to my article in WikiPilipinas with this message:

To whom it may concern;

I Edgar Escultura formally renounce my claims to have disproven Fermat’s Last Theorem (FLT), my claims that the real number system is flawed, and my claim that the complex number i is not well defined. I also retract my claim that Dr. Wiles acknowledged my work was correct and my claim to have been nominated for the Nobel Prize in physics, I have discovered that these were both cruel tricks being played on me by people signing a guestbook on my website.

I would like to acknowledge the efforts of various bloggers and their readers for taking the time to demonstrate the flaws in my arguments. Were it not for their genuine care and patience I would still be defending indefensible claims. I also apologize to any people who spent considerable time trying to understand my writing, I was wrong and am man enough to admit it.

I would also like to inform the mathematics community that the journal that published my work, Nonlinear Studies, did a grave disservice to you all in allowing work so peppered with errors to ever be printed. I apologize for myself and the irresponsible behaviour of Nonlinear Studies.

Finally to Dr. Wiles, I offer you my sincerest apologies. Your proof is and always was correct, there were no “fatal flaws” in it as I so often asserted. I also apologize to you for trying to pass off obvious forgeries as your writings. Most importantly I would like to apologize to you for ever attacking your stature as a mathematician, my claims were not only false but also inconsiderate, I acted foolishly and can only hope you can forgive me.

E. E Escultura Research Professor V. Lakshmikantham Institute for Advanced Studies and Departments of Mathematics and Physics GVP College of Engineering, JNT University

=================

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura
(continued)

E. E. Escultura said...

Putting the Institute of Mathematics in its Right Place (continued)

This “apology” is, of course, fake. I NEVER posted it and I NEVER CLAIMED that I disproved FLT. I did something greater: I DISPROVED IT by counterexamples published in my papers in several renowned peer reviewed scientific journals. A partial list of my publications with abstracts is given in one of my websites, The Grand Unified Theory, http://edgareescultura.wordpress.com/ (see also my old website, Grand Unification of Natural Dynamics, http://users.tpg.com.au/pidro/). Most of my papers are being sold online (for instance, search: escultura science direct elsevier). The latest confirmation of my nomination for the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2005 is the announcement of my new book, Hybrid Grand Unified Theory, co-authored with V. Lakshmikantham and S. Leela, published by Atlantis in March 2009 and distributed by World Scientific which specifically mentions the nomination. This book was a best seller in 2009 among books of all categories in natural and social sciences distributed by World Scientific. It made it to the #2 slot among best sellers in July, 2009. For the information of the Institute these are my major achievements recorded and etched in internet archives:

1. Disproved Fermat’s last theorem by countably infinite counterexamples, Nonlinear Studies, 5(2), 1998, pp. 227 – 254 (published by the International Federation of Nonlinear Analysts).
2. Solved the gravitational n-body problem, Nonlinear Analysis, A-Series: Theory, Methods and Applications, 30(8), 1997, pp. 5021 – 5032 (published by Elsevier Science, Ltd; formerly North-Holland).
3. Solved the turbulence problem, Nonlinear Analysis, A-Series: Theory, Methods and Applications 47(2001), pp. 1539 – 1551, 5032 (published by Elsevier Science, Ltd).
4. Discovered the superstring, basic constituent of matter, Nonlinear Analysis, C-Series: Theory, Methods and Applications, 30(8), 1997 (it is the foundation of the solution of the gravitational n-body problem).
5. Developed the grand unified theory in a series of papers since 1997 and consolidated in the paper, The Grand Unified Theory, Nonlinear Analysis, C-Series: Theory, Methods and Applications,:69(3), 2008, pp. pp. 823 – 831 5032 (published by Elsevier Science, Ltd).

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura
(continued)

E. E. Escultura said...

Putting the Institute of Mathematics in its Right Place (continued)

6. Developed the new real number system, Neural, Parallel and Scientific Computations, 17(2009), 59 – 84 (Published by Dynamic Publishers).
7. Proved Goldbach’s conjecture, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 138(2003), 127 – 14
(published by Elsevier Science, Ltd).
8. Developed the generalized integral for set-valued functions, Proceedings of International Conferences on Tools for Mathematical Modelling, June 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, pp. 221 - 224.
9. Developed the generalized integral as dual of Schwarz distribution, Nonlinear Studies, invited paper by Nonlinear Studies, in press.
10. Developed the Complex Vector Plane which rectifies the present defect of the complex number system in the appendix to: The generalized integral as dual of Schwarz distribution, invited paper, Nonlinear Studies.
11. Gave a keynote address on the topic, The mathematics of the grand unified theory, and addressed a plenary session on the topic, The new real number system as the g-closure of the terminating decimals, at the 5th World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts, Orlando, Florida, July 2 – 9, 2008 (Sponsored by the International Federation of Nonlinear Analysts).
12. Gave a keynote address at the 4th International Conference on Dynamic Systems and Applications, Atlanta, USA, April 30 – May 2, 2007.
13. Introduced the new scientific methodology of qualitative modelling as the main contribution of my Ph.D. Thesis, The trajectories, reachable set, minimal levels and chains of trajectories of a control system, at the University of Wisconsin, 1970.
14. Made the first qualitative model of the atom, Qualitative model of the atom, its components and origin in the early universe, Proc. 5th World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts, Nonlinear Analysis, B-Series: Real World Applications, 2009, 11, pp. 29 – 38 (published by Elsevier Science, ltd).

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura
(continued)

E. E. Escultura said...

Putting the Institute of Mathematics in its Right Place (continued)

Now, I have been invited to keynote the 6th International Conference on Dynamics Systems and Applications, Atlanta, Georgia, May 25 – 28, 2011, on the topic, Our fractal universe and applications. The abstract will be online shortly at Atlas Conferences website.

The other reason for this article is to identify the sources of frustration that led to this futile and desperate action by the Institute and provide insights on why the IM stooped to ground level by posting this fake apology. The brief history of the Institute below and its present status explain this unusual behaviour.

(1) In 1986 I returned from the US after an absence of 15 years due to the political turmoil during that period and re-joined the Department as Associate Professor.

(2) Eager to advance mathematics in the country I proposed in 1988 the conversion of the Department from a purely teaching department to an Institute with focus on research.

(3) This proposal did not sit well with the leadership for obvious reason: no one else was doing research at that time and the cloud of insecurity loomed large over it. The fall out: my dismissal from the Department by denying tenure followed by sustained campaign of vilification that continues to this day.

(4) What is the score? The Institute’s website reveals the following information:
(a) The Institute has 10 full professors, 7 associate professors, 9 assistant professors, one adjunct professor, 56 instructors and many lecturers.
(b) NONE OF THE FULL, ASSOCIATE AND ASSISTANT PROFESSORS HAS ANY PUBLICATION IN MATHEMATICS. The adjunct professor has publications in applied mathematics which is commendable but not mathematics.
(c) There are about 12 papers by the junior faculty on the applications of mathematics to other fields such as biology and computer science. They are also commendable contributions to the fields of applications of mathematics but not mathematics papers.

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura
(continued)

E. E. Escultura said...

Putting the Institute of Mathematics in its Right Place (continued)

The last item above explains why the Institute has all the time to carry on this vilification campaign during the last 23 years.

This candid look at the Institute is not washing dirty linen in public because the Institute’s website is viewed worldwide. Rather, it is a call for the College to do something with the only Institute that rides on the prestige of the College but refused to join the ranks of its world-class other Institutes.

If I had a glass roof over my head I would keep away from trouble.

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura

E. E. Escultura said...

Putting the Institute of Mathematics in its Right Place (continued)

Finally to Dr. Wiles, I offer you my sincerest apologies. Your proof is and always was correct, there were no “fatal flaws” in it as I so often asserted. I also apologize to you for trying to pass off obvious forgeries as your writings. Most importantly I would like to apologize to you for ever attacking your stature as a mathematician, my claims were not only false but also inconsiderate, I acted foolishly and can only hope you can forgive me.

E. E Escultura Research Professor V. Lakshmikantham Institute for Advanced Studies and Departments of Mathematics and Physics GVP College of Engineering, JNT University

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura
(continued)

E. E. Escultura said...

Putting the Institute of Mathematics in its Right Place (continued)

This “apology” is, of course, fake. I NEVER posted it and I NEVER CLAIMED that I disproved FLT. I did something greater: I DISPROVED IT by counterexamples published in my papers in several renowned peer reviewed scientific journals. A partial list of my publications with abstracts is given in one of my websites, The Grand Unified Theory, http://edgareescultura.wordpress.com/ (see also my old website, Grand Unification of Natural Dynamics, http://users.tpg.com.au/pidro/). Most of my papers are being sold online (for instance, search: escultura science direct elsevier). The latest confirmation of my nomination for the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2005 is the announcement of my new book, Hybrid Grand Unified Theory, co-authored with V. Lakshmikantham and S. Leela, published by Atlantis in March 2009 and distributed by World Scientific which specifically mentions the nomination. This book was a best seller in 2009 among books of all categories in natural and social sciences distributed by World Scientific. It made it to the #2 slot among best sellers in July, 2009. For the information of the Institute these are my major achievements recorded and etched in internet archives:

1. Disproved Fermat’s last theorem by countably infinite counterexamples, Nonlinear Studies, 5(2), 1998, pp. 227 – 254 (published by the International Federation of Nonlinear Analysts).
2. Solved the gravitational n-body problem, Nonlinear Analysis, A-Series: Theory, Methods and Applications, 30(8), 1997, pp. 5021 – 5032 (published by Elsevier Science, Ltd; formerly North-Holland).
3. Solved the turbulence problem, Nonlinear Analysis, A-Series: Theory, Methods and Applications 47(2001), pp. 1539 – 1551, 5032 (published by Elsevier Science, Ltd).
4. Discovered the superstring, basic constituent of matter, Nonlinear Analysis, C-Series: Theory, Methods and Applications, 30(8), 1997 (it is the foundation of the solution of the gravitational n-body problem).
5. Developed the grand unified theory in a series of papers since 1997 and consolidated in the paper, The Grand Unified Theory, Nonlinear Analysis, C-Series: Theory, Methods and Applications,:69(3), 2008, pp. pp. 823 – 831 5032 (published by Elsevier Science, Ltd).

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura
(continued)

eeescultura said...

Putting the Institute of Mathematics in its Right Place (continued)

6. Developed the new real number system, Neural, Parallel and Scientific Computations, 17(2009), 59 – 84 (Published by Dynamic Publishers).
7. Proved Goldbach’s conjecture, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 138(2003), 127 – 14
(published by Elsevier Science, Ltd).
8. Developed the generalized integral for set-valued functions, Proceedings of International Conferences on Tools for Mathematical Modelling, June 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, pp. 221 - 224.
9. Developed the generalized integral as dual of Schwarz distribution, Nonlinear Studies, invited paper by Nonlinear Studies, in press.
10. Developed the Complex Vector Plane which rectifies the present defect of the complex number system in the appendix to: The generalized integral as dual of Schwarz distribution, invited paper, Nonlinear Studies.
11. Gave a keynote address on the topic, The mathematics of the grand unified theory, and addressed a plenary session on the topic, The new real number system as the g-closure of the terminating decimals, at the 5th World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts, Orlando, Florida, July 2 – 9, 2008 (Sponsored by the International Federation of Nonlinear Analysts).
12. Gave a keynote address at the 4th International Conference on Dynamic Systems and Applications, Atlanta, USA, April 30 – May 2, 2007.
13. Introduced the new scientific methodology of qualitative modelling as the main contribution of my Ph.D. Thesis, The trajectories, reachable set, minimal levels and chains of trajectories of a control system, at the University of Wisconsin, 1970.
14. Made the first qualitative model of the atom, Qualitative model of the atom, its components and origin in the early universe, Proc. 5th World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts, Nonlinear Analysis, B-Series: Real World Applications, 2009, 11, pp. 29 – 38 (published by Elsevier Science, ltd).

Now, I have been invited to keynote the 6th International Conference on Dynamics Systems and Applications, Atlanta, Georgia, May 25 – 28, 2011, on the topic, Our fractal universe and applications. The abstract will be online shortly at Atlas Conferences website.

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura
(continued)

eeescultura said...

Putting the Institute of Mathematics in its Right Place (continued)

The other reason for this article is to identify the sources of frustration that led to this futile and desperate action by the Institute and provide insights on why the IM stooped to ground level by posting this fake apology. The brief history of the Institute below and its present status explain this unusual behaviour.

(1) In 1986 I returned from the US after an absence of 15 years due to the political turmoil during that period and re-joined the Department as Associate Professor.

(2) Eager to advance mathematics in the country I proposed in 1988 the conversion of the Department from a purely teaching department to an Institute with focus on research.

(3) This proposal did not sit well with the leadership for obvious reason: no one else was doing research at that time and the cloud of insecurity loomed large over it. The fall out: my dismissal from the Department by denying tenure followed by sustained campaign of vilification that continues to this day.

(4) What is the score? The Institute’s website reveals the following information:
(a) The Institute has 10 full professors, 7 associate professors, 9 assistant professors, one adjunct professor, 56 instructors and many lecturers.
(b) NONE OF THE FULL, ASSOCIATE AND ASSISTANT PROFESSORS HAS ANY PUBLICATION IN MATHEMATICS. The adjunct professor has publications in applied mathematics which is commendable but not mathematics.
(c) There are about 12 papers by the junior faculty on the applications of mathematics to other fields such as biology and computer science. They are also commendable contributions to the fields of applications of mathematics but not mathematics papers.

The last item above explains why the Institute has all the time to carry on this vilification campaign during the last 23 years.

This candid look at the Institute is not washing dirty linen in public because the Institute’s website is viewed worldwide. Rather, it is a call for the College to do something with the only Institute that rides on the prestige of the College but refused to join the ranks of its world-class other Institutes.

If I had a glass roof over my head I would keep away from trouble.

Cheers,

E. E. Escultura