Longest thread

I'm an occasional blogger. No one except my friends and relatives semi-regularly visit this blog. My one claim to semi-fame was my writing to the Manila Times when they asserted that Dr. Escultura disproved Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

An out shoot of this dispute with the Manila Times and Dr. Escultura was my creating the Salenga Award to honor those exemplary Filipinos who contributed to the development of Filipino's interest in science through the propagation of their crackpot theories.

Dr. Escultura is the first and only recipient of the award so far. Little do i know that the small post twitting Dr. Escultura will grow to have the longest comment thread in my little blog. Not only has Dr. Escultura visited to yet again spout his theories but (if you believe the writer) Salenga himself has deemed it proper to grace the blog with his presence.

I feel so honored.

p.s

Since i'm writing about Dr. Escultura, I would like to point out that he also left a comment to a long buried post where I quoted and agreed with a column by Alex Magno. In his comment, it seemed that Dr. Escultura mistook Alex Magno for Alecks Pabico. I think Dr. Escultura needs medical attention.

140-year-old math problem - finally solved

A problem, the Schwarz-Christoffel formula which has defeated mathematicians for almost 140 years has been solved by a researcher at Imperial College London.

read more | digg story

I will now wait of Ed Escultura to disprove this. :)

Nobel academy? No way! How did you get my number?

"Astrophysicist George Smoot spends his days pondering the origin of the universe. But when his phone rang before dawn on Tuesday with news that he and fellow American John Mather won the 2006 Nobel prize for physics, he was skeptical about the origin of the phone call."

If only EEE can be this skeptical. I would like to report that he's given up, he has not.

read more | digg story

The Anti-Escultura

From seattlepi.com

"Grigory Perelman, a 40-year-old native of St. Petersburg, won a Fields Medal - often described as math's equivalent of the Nobel prize - for a breakthrough in the study of shapes that experts say might help scientists figure out the shape of the universe"

The story from the Wall Street Journal

"In 2002 and 2003, he posted two papers to an online archive. Usually, a posting serves a flag-planting function - "I solved this first!" - until the paper is published in a journal, which can take years. But as the math community waited for him to follow up his postings, a realization set in. Dr. Perelman, long affiliated with the Steklov Institute of Mathematics in St. Petersburg, apparently has no intention of saying more. He probably feels he proved the Poincare conjecture, mathematicians surmise, and has no interest in the $1 million bounty. (He did not respond to emailed requests for comment.)"

"Putting his proof online rather than in a journal is only one example of Dr. Perelman's iconoclasm. He admits that he gives only "a sketch of an eclectic proof of" a more general conjecture from which Poincare's follows; he never mentions Poincare. The papers are difficult to understand, and sketchy in the extreme. He asserts that one can prove something by a variation on an earlier argument, but it isn't clear what the variation is. "Perelman's papers are written in a style rather different from what would appear in a journal," says mathematician Bruce Kleiner of Yale University."

"Others have taken it upon themselves to explicate his work - and find no major flaws. Like Torah commentaries, they dwarf the original. Dr. Perelman's 2003 paper is 22 pdf pages; the 2002 paper is 39. But "Notes on Perelman's Papers," in which Prof. Kleiner and John Lott of the University of Michigan explain them almost line-by-line, is 192 pages. A book on the papers is expected to top 300 pages. A "complete proof" of Poincare, based on Dr. Perelman's breakthrough and published last month in the Asian Journal of Mathematics (which Prof. Milnor describes as throwing "a monkey wrench" into the question of who gets credit), is 328 pages long."

He put his proof online and did not answer questions nor defend it, yet other mathematicians recognized the worth of his work continued it and still gave most of the credit to Mr. Perelman. so much so that he won a Fields Medal.

Meanwhile the Gauss Prize that Dr. Escultura has claimed he won was awarded for the first time to Kiyoshi Itô

Nobel Prize in Physics

The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded today and the winners are...

Roy J. Glauber
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

"for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence"

John L. Hall

JILA, University of Colorado and National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, CO, USA and

Theodor W. Hänsch
Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik, Garching and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany

"for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique".

Source:
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/announcement.html
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/index.html
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/press.html
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/info.pdf

To Infinity and Beyond

I've started reading this book, How the Universe got its Spots: Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space by Janna Levin. And the operative word here is started. From the title, the book is about the Universe, but before going there, she discusses mathematics and mathematicians.

The first line of the book perked my interest

"Some of the great mathematicians killed themselves. The lore is that their theories drove them mad, though I suspect they were just lonely, isolated by what they knew."

Of course this line, reminded me of my favorite mathematician, EEE. I hope that he is just a little mad, and I fervently hope that he is not lonely.

In the second chapter, she went into a discussion on infinity and the theory of Ludwig Phillip Cantor called transfinite arithmetic. I thought I was getting along fine with the ideas, countable infinite numbers, infinite rational numbers, infinite irrational numbers, and then the bombshell, some sets of infinite numbers are larger than others. HUH? how can this be? Of course she gave an explanation:

"Cantor realized that the set of irrational numbers was infinite in a way that was so huge as to be uncountable. They cannot be represented by one integer divided by another and some require an infinitely long desciption, such as pi or the golden ratio. An uncountable infinity could never be put into one-to-one correspondence with a countable infinity and so the irrational numbers must be of a larger infinity than the natural numbers"

And this is where I got lost. reminding me why I preferred political science as my undergradute course. I will still read the book, hopefully finish and increase my understanding of mathematics and the universe. Hopefully, this book will not drive me mad. If you can find the book, maybe you can join me in this adventure.

Salen-ga Award

"Salen-ga, a Filipino, discovered that the negative electron is actually positive"

In honor of Prof. Edgardo E. Escultura, I am proposing the establishment of the Salen-ga awards. The Salen-ga awards will be given to that exemplary Filipino who has contributed to the development of Filipino's interest in science through the propagation of their crackpot theories.

I propose the creation of the Salen-ga Society. The Salen-ga Society will be the organization to administer the award. Those who wish to join the Salen-ga Society can apply here.

I propose that the award be given every 5th of May to commemorate the day when the Manila Times reported that Prof. EEE had disproven Andrew Wiles proof regarding Fermat's Last theorem.

Nominations to the award are now open, the first nominee, of course is Prof. Edgar Escultura. To nominate people, one must join the Salen-ga Society.

Suggestion for the improvement of the award are welcome, please join the Salen-ga Society.

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

Revisiting Escultura

I was browsing Alecks Pabico's article on Edgar Escultura when I came upon a letter that I wrote to the Manila Times regarding their news story about the good professor receiving the Carl Friederich Gauss Prize from the International Mathematical Union. I was not expecting them to again print a letter from me and I was distracted by the events then occuring in the Philippines that I did not see their response until now. My letter and the Manila Times response was copied by Jo Torres in the comments section of Alecks articles.

I mentioned in my letter that according to the website of the International Mathematical Union, the Carl Friederich Gauss Prize will be awarded for the first time in 2006 and I asked them to include this fact to amend their story.

Rather than directly refuting the fact, by for example, contacting the IMU directly and asking them to include the name of Mr. Escultura in the IMU website as a winner of the prize, the Manila Times published 2 letters from a John Gardiner supposedly from the International Mathematical Union with an e-mail address of imu@ias.edu and from a certain Imgul L. Bel member of the Deutsche Mathematiker-Vereinigung with an e-mail address at scott.migdole@yale.edu.

The letters were addressed to Prof. Escultura advising and congratulating him on winning the said prizes. Unfortunately, like the letters that Mr. Escultura supposedly received from Andrew Wiles, that the Manila Times describes as e-mail, these supposed letters were also comments from Mr. Escultura's guest book which Abe of Don't Let Me Stop You has proven, can be easily spoofed.

And again, the Manila Times seem not to know how to operate a browser and/or a search engine. Let us deal with Mr. John Gardiner first. The top item if you search for "John Gardiner" in google belongs to Prof. John Gardiner, a professor of psychology. A search for "John Gardiner and International Mathematical Union" yields only the Manila Times story, a poor yield for the President of the International Mathematical Union. and the imu@ias.edu e-mail? belongs to Phillip A. Griffiths, Secretary of the IMU. Who then is John Gardiner and why is he using an e-mail that does not belong to him? He certainly is not the President of the International Mathematical Union, that honor belongs to Professor John M. Ball, Sedleian Professor of Natural Philosophy and Fellow of the Queens College at Oxford University.

A simple search, I did it in 20 minutes, could have informed the Manila Times that they may not be dealing with a real person here, maybe the search result of Professor John Gardiner, psychologist could have given them a clue?

Next, Imgul L. Bel, a google search yielded no results. Very paltry for a member of Yale University. Similar results were obtained when I searched the Yale University phonebook but not when you search for the supposed e-mail address of Mr. Bel. A google search for the e-mail scott.migdole@yale.edu, reveals that the e-mail belongs to, surprise, Scott Migdole - Chief Operating Officer of the Yale Behavioral Health program from the Yale Department of Psychiatry.

So again, the Manila Times had believed comments coming from Mr. Escultura's guest book. They believed that the Carl Friederich Gauss Prize, is given through online transactions. They did not check the veracity of the supposed prize nor the reality of the commenters. If they did, maybe the links to known mental health practitioners would have given the Manila Times a clue that they are being played for fools.

I do not fault Mr. Escultura on this and previous matters, he is a harmless old crank who probably actually believes in his theories. The Manila Times however should know better, keeping to best journalistic practices should keep them safe from hoax letters. But they did not, and so they tarnish their reputation.

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.

Updates on EEE

The Manila Times seem to have given up on answering questions on why they did not verify the press release of EEEscultura. To redirect the attention of the public, they have given EEE space in their paper to spout on his theories. EEE has now penned a letter to the editor and reiterated most of the points in the letter in his column. They have some interesting discussions on this topic at the comments section of Alecks Pabico's blog at the PCIJ.

I think that we have reached the end of this story, the Manila Times is unwilling to admit to their journalistic mistake and EEE has been insisting on his refutation of Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat's last theorem since at least 1998.

I just hope people will be remember, not everything you read is true.

Update on an update

If you want a comprehensive coverage of this issue, you might want to go over to the dontletmestopyou,blog by abe, his latest writing on this issue is here

Story from the PCIJ

A member of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), Mr. Alecks Pabico, tried to do what the Manila Times should have done and researched the "UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong" story.

First, He found out that the supposed e-mail from Andrew Wiles, was written on the guestbook of Mr. Escultura's website. I found it on page 5, of the guestbook. On page 4, another or the same person claiming to be Andrew Wiles wrote "You do, of course, realize I was joking, right? I mean about FLT. Apparently, you're the only one who took the whole thing seriously."

Second, He tracked down a contact address of Mr. Andrew Wiles, and and asked him to comment on the claims made by the Manila Times story. Mr. Wiles denies e-mailing or even of knowing the Mr. Escultura's website.

Third, He interviewed Mr. Escultura and got him to agree that some of the details from the story were wrong.

Letter from the UP Math Department

A friend sent this letter from faculty members of the University of the Philippines' Math Department. Mr. Escultura taught at the University of the Philippines.

Letter to the Editor of the Manila Times

We find the Manila Times’ front page story (“UP Math Prof proves Princeton Man Wrong”, 5 May) disturbing as it has given many readers false and unfounded information, and hence, a false sense of pride about our nation's scientists. To say that the celebrated proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem (FLT) by Princeton mathematician Andrew Wiles is wrong is a tall claim and would put into question one of the 20th century’s greatest intellectual achievements.

In 1637, Pierre de Fermat conjectured that the equation x ^n + y^n= z^n has no non-zero integer solutions whenever the exponent n is greater than 2. Several generations of mathematicians searched for a proof of FLT, which became the Holy Grail of mathematics. By discovering astonishing connections between different areas of mathematics, Wiles finally proved FLT in 1995. His proof was carefully studied by many mathematicians all over the world before it was published.

Edgar Escultura now says that Wiles was wrong. A refutation of this importance would have sent out ripples in the scientific community and landed in pages of newspapers around the world. Instead, it has fed discussions on the Internet on cranks and scientific discovery.

Your reader Roy Choco was correct: a newspaper of your stature should have done more sleuthing and checking of facts. Certainly, you need to do more than echo the assertions of Escultura.

The Chicago event after the announcement of Wiles' proof of FLT (Manila Times: "In Chicago, for instance, mathematicians marched on the streets in euphoric celebration.") never took place. This must have been based on a June 1993 Chicago Tribune article (see for example http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1993/1993AGD.html) which parodied the excitement of math people whenever a difficult math problem is solved. A fruitless google search on Escultura’s collaborator “Bernard Ziegler of the University of Texas in Houston” leads us to suspect that a mathematician of that name does not exist.

Ed Escultura first raised the issue of foundational problems of mathematics at least 15 years ago, asserting as shaky the grounds which concepts/definitions—including all the mathematics we were taught in school-- stand on. Then in 1993, he trained his guns on Fermat's Last Theorem, followed by the gravitational n-body problem. This last problem eluded Einstein until his death.

In his papers, Escultura does not give a critique of Wiles' work per se; FLT is simply the straw man he takes jabs at to question the real number system and its foundations. The foundations are wrong, he says, and therefore statements built on them, like FLT, are 'wrongly-formulated.' By rebuilding the real number system on new ground, he proceeded to construct counter-examples to Fermat's statement.

Counter-examples to Fermat are not new. If one changes the setting of the equations, then solutions to the equation of Fermat can be found. For example, it has been known since the early 1900s that solutions to Fermat’s equation exist in the world of “p-adic numbers”. But this does not refute Fermat and Wiles’ theorem: that there are no solutions in the world of integers.

What is meant by “foundations” in mathematics are the axioms (or postulates, as many of us have learned in high school geometry), from which mathematical statements are proved through a chain of logical reasoning. Axioms are very much like the rules of a game of chess. A configuration of pieces on the board is possible if it can be arrived at after a sequence of legal moves. In the same way, a mathematical statement is valid (or “correct”) if it can be proved from the axioms in a finite number of steps.

Escultura says that some axioms of the real number system are false. But axioms, just like the rules of a game, are just axioms—neither false nor true. There can be different systems of mathematics, each with its own set of axioms and semantics.

Escultura saw "errors" in FLT because he 1) insists that axioms such as trichotomy and completeness are 'wrong' and 2) he judges FLT from the standpoint of another axiom set. Allowed these liberties, the logician Bertrand Russell proved that he was the Pope. If Escultura's axiom set is consistent, then the mathematics that follows from it is neither more valid nor less valid than the mathematics we learn in school. We can have as many axiomatic systems as we want, each as logically valid as the rest.

Many years ago, New York University physicist Alan Sokal conducted an unusual experiment. In order to parody postmodernism and question the standards academia uses to judge what is fit for publication, he submitted to the prestigious journal Social Text a paper containing absolute nonsense written in academic gobbledygook. His hypothesis was that a journal accepts a paper if it "sounds good," and if it "flatters the editors' ideological preconceptions." Well the journal accepted the paper and how embarrassing it was a year later when Sokal revealed the hoax.

We wish Escultura writes the Manila Times and the “peer-reviewed journals” to say he was just kidding.

It does not speak well for the Manila Times that, without checking facts or consulting the scientific community, it has given front page coverage to a tiring issue that has made the rounds of math and science Internet forums many years ago. The only thing new here is Escultura's exchange of letters with Andrew Wiles. Wiles' letter itself drips with sarcasm, and it is amazing that someone could take it seriously.

EE has taken the Times for a ride, along with the rest of us, if we fall for this feel-good story of a Pinoy professor outwitting intellectual giants of the West.

The Faculty of the Department of Mathematics
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City

How to Spot Crackpot Theories

During the last 2 weeks, I have been engrossed with the Manila Times endorsement of Mr. Edgar Escultura's claim that he has refuted Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem. Now, I am not a mathematician so I could not criticize Mr. Escultura's theories directly but I tend to recognize bullshit when I see it and the title of the article itself "UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong" actually raised an alarm with my bullshit meter. Because if the title is correct, then, the internet would have been full of stories about it, I did a search with google, and no trace of this story has surfaced except in the Manila Times.

So I have spent the last 2 weeks trying to convince the Manila Times to "verify" the veracity of their story. I do not know if they will. I hope they do so, but I doubt it.

As an excercise I am linking to some sites that give us, laymen, some guide on how to spot crackpot theories. i leave the reader (if there are any) to decide whether Mr. Escultura's theory fits their description.


Top 10 Ways To Spot A Crackpot

Crank Physics Detection Guide

Russell Turpin's "Characterization of Quack Theories"

The Crackpot Index

Letter to the Manila Times

I wrote the Manila Times a 2nd letter. this will be, I hope, the last. If I cannot convince them, then they deserve the brickbats they are getting. This is the letter.

To: The Editor
The Manila Times

Dear Sir:

First, I would like to thank you for pointing out the many grammatical errors I made in my letter to you dated May 6, 2005. I will try and do better.

Second, I would like to commend you for having the courage to admit that you did not check the veracity and accurateness of the story "UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong" before publishing it because, as you put it, you "did not have any reason to doubt (Mr. E.E. Escultura) him."

Third, I would like to encourage you to stop this practice of not verifying stories from people you do not have any reason to doubt as this can lead to false or inaccurate stories. The Philippine Press Institute's code of ethics for journalists states that journalists "shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis."

I would like to point out that not getting comments from Mr. Andrew Wiles regarding his alleged e-mail reply can "distort the truth by omission". If the alleged e-mail from Mr. Wiles did not really come from Mr. Wiles, then your story attributed to him a position he does not share.

I would also point out that the title of the story "UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong" distorts the truth from improper emphasis. Mr. Escultura may believe that he is correct but the vast majority of Mathematicians, as can be seen from a google search, do not share his view.Last, I did a quick google search for the names of the mathematicians included in your list and came out with e-mail addresses for 3 of them. I wrote them a letter inquiring whether they agree with Mr. Escultura's claim that he has proven that Mr. Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem is false. Mr. George S. Osipenko, Editor-in-Chief of the "Electronic Journal Diffrential Equation and Control Processes" http://www.neva.ru/journal/ answered

" I am not sure that I is a person that you need. I know only that this theorem was proved few yeas ago by the Spanish mathematician. The proof is not so simple and is so big. My object is Dynamical systems and I have weak in the Ferma theorem."

This does not invalidate the list, but this at least questions the accuracy of the number of mathematicians who "acknowledged and/or congratulated" Mr. Escultura.

I hope this convinces you to revisit the story and verify the claims in them.

Thank you.

Roy C. Choco
Blk 1, Lot 3, Sapphire St., Hiys Subd.,
Valenzuela Metro Manila

In reviewing the letter, I saw that I again failed to add at least on "the" and spelled Mr. Escultura's name wrong. When will I ever learn to review my writing before sending it, not after.

Fermat's Last Theorem

I was so upset with the news story by the Manila Times last week that I wrote them a letter.

"I was reading your on-line edition on Thursday (May 5) when I came upon the story about Prof. Edgar Escultura proving the proof advanced by Mr. Andrew Wiles and Richard Taylor on Fermat’s last theorem was incorrect. The story is at the very least incomplete and most probably untrue.

First, according to the theory, the refutation of the proof was published in 1998 and was greeted with much discussion on the Internet. A casual Google search on the terms “proof Fermat’s last theorem” yielded websites that only discuss the proof as presented by Mr. Wiles and Mr. Taylor. No mention has been made regarding Mr. Escultura nor his supposed refutation. Did your reporter, Mr. Rony V. Diaz, even made this kind of cursory search?

Second, according to the story, Mr. Wiles conceded an error regarding his proof and will be reviewing all his proof. But the e-mail was addressed to Mr. Escultura. There is no independent verification of this “supposed” concession was made. Did The Manila Times even tried to contact Mr. Wiles regarding this assertion by Mr. Escultura? Nothing in the article leads me to believe that asking Mr. Wiles nor other mathematicians was even considered.

Third, who even said that Mr. Escultura actually refuted Mr. Wiles’s proof? Who or what body was the source of this story? Whom did this person/body/ experts/ decide that Mr. Escultura was correct? To whom should the readers actually try and validate veracity of the story?

So The Times ran a story from no-one that was verified by nobody. Is this the kind of journalism that The Manila Times practices? I expected more from your paper."

They published the letter together with an editors reply here

According to the reply,

"The source of our information, including the letter of Dr. Wiles, was Dr. Escultura. We did not have any reason to doubt him".

So, the Manila Times will actually print a news story, from anybody, as long as they do not have any reason to doubt him. They will not try to verify the story. They will not dig further for independent confirmation.

Who are then these paragons of truth from whom the Manila Times feel they need not double check? Is Mr. Escultura the only, are there more? What criteria does the Manila Times use to determine who are these founts of wisdom?

How can we then as readers trust the Manila Times? How can we be sure then that the news they print is truthful and factual and not the imaginary submissions of a person that they have no reason to doubt?

I will ask my question again. Is this the kind of journalism the Manila Times practices? It seems so.

UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong???

The Manila Times Internet Edition | TOP STORIES > UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong

Nandito na naman tayo, last year, lumabas yung mga kagila-gilalas na adventures ni Faye, isang bata na against all odds ay nanalo saa isang paligsahan, laban sa mga katunggali niyang galing sa mayayamang bayan sa mundo, na wala man lamang tulong sa ating gobyerno.

Ngayon naman, isang balita galing sa Manila Times kung saan ipinagmamalaki nila na ni-refute ng isang teacher sa UP ang proof na ginawa nina Andrew Wiles at Richard Taylor sa Last Theorem ni Fermat.

Ayon sa article, ni publish ni Edgar Escultura, ang kanyang refutation sa proof nina Wiles at Taylor noong 1998 at dahil dito ay nagkaroon ng masigabong diskusyon sa internet tungkol dito.

Ayon pa sa article, nag-concede na ng error si Andrew Wiles kay Ed Escultura.

And yet, kung mag search ka sa internet, wala ka namang makitang diskusyon sa sinasabing refutation sa proof nina Wiles. In fact, kung mag search ka sa google ng "proof fermat's last theorem" katakut takot na pages tungkol sa proof nina Wiles ang ipapakita sa iyo ng google at wala tungkol sa supposedly refutation ni Edgar Escultura.

Kung ganito ang lagay, bakit na-publish ang istorya na ito? Alam ba ng Manila Times ang kanilang ginagawa? Humingi ba sila ng katunayan sa kanilang reporter na si Rony V. Diaz sa report na ito? Ni-email man lang ba nila si Andrew Wiles para makunan nila ito ng comment? Kumuha ba sila ng comment sa ilan pang Mathematicians? Nakalimutan ba ng Manila Times ang kanilang April Fools joke at bumabawi ngayon?

Ganito ba talaga ang standard ng journalism sa Pilipinas?