Don't Let Me Stop You

What the heck, you'll do what you want anyway.

Escultura Still at It

Posted by Dan Draney on September 11, 2006

Once again, Professor Edgar Escultura is prowling around in the comments section of the blog. Dr. E’s style of “debate” is to keep spewing out copious quantities of nonsense until others tire. He then claims “victory” by virtue of getting The Last Word.

In this round he is continuing his claims that he was “robbed” of the Nobel Prize in Physics. In support of this, he provides this link to an online article from last December (“recent”) in an Indian newspaper. The author, one B. M. Hegde, is apparently a buddy of Dr. E., based on the article itself and on the fact that Hegde (or someone purporting to be him/her) just posted the same link in another comment thread.

The Hegde article points out that past Nobel Prize committees have mads mistakes. A quick look as past recipients of the Peace Prize makes that abundantly clear. At any rate, here’s the portion that Dr. Escultura really wants to call to your attention:

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! [Emphasis added]

We can deduce a several things from this. First of all “Eddie” and B. M. Hegde are friends. Secondly, Dr. Escultura himself is the source for the Hegde’s story of how Eddie was “unfairly” denied the Nobel Prize. Thirdly, Escultura learned of the story in a “personal letter.”

Those who have been following this story will recognize the pattern. (Just use the Google box on the right sidebar to search for “Escultura” on this blog, if you want a refresher.) The “personal letter” is a code phrase for an anonymous entry on Dr. Escultura’s web site guest book. This guest book is full of trollish comments from people baiting Dr. E. and signing whatever name they please to their posts. Dr. Escultura takes them all seriously and at face value, or at least he acts like he does.

So even if there is a real Prof. Gerholms out there somewhere, and even if he had some role in selecting the Nobel Prize winner in Physics, this story is not credible. For one thing the Nobel nominations are secret. Only the winners are revealed. Not even the other nominees themselves know they were nominated. It is not credible that someone on the selection committee would be so unprofessional as to violate a confidentiality agreement by revealing the names of any other nominees.

And what does Hegde/Escultura/”Gerholms” mean by “members of the committee lobbying for their candidates?” Are the committee members not supposed to decide who they think should get the award and assert their viewpoints? How is this different from “Gerholms” “lobbying” for Escultura in this non-existent debate?

We stand by our previous claims that we are just as close to getting the Nobel Prize in Chemistry as Dr. Escultura is to getting the Physics Prize. We’re not going to spend that prize money just yet, at least not until we know that Hell has frozen over.

Technorati: , , , , ,


8 Responses to “Escultura Still at It”

  1. Dan said


    I know this post is rather old, however I would like to direct you to the little gem at

    Here guys from Hope Research, whatever that may be, have ‘identified’ 30 primes or something, and thus completely solved the mystery of distribution of the primes and disproved the Riemann hypothesis.

    They have something they call the ‘paragon of 19’ and ‘inverse 19 mathematics’, whatever that is I couldn’t find an explicit explanation. The absolute best part of this is they attack Escultura as a mainstream renowned mathematician, and since he has a stake in ‘preserving the current lies’ he and Wiles together use their stature in the community to discredit their revolutionary ideas. Apparently there is a whole new level of crankdom that is so out there they think garden variety cranks like Escultura are part of the ‘system’.

    You have to read through a few of their posts to get a full appreciation for their genius. Apparently to divide a 100 foot fence into 50 equal segments you must consider (100 + 1)/50 not 100/50, I think this might be some misunderstanding of fencepost errors. Or another gem is “19/7 + 9/7 = EXACT 4”, thus FLT is false along with the Riemann hypothesis and everything Einstein ever wrote. There is also something about creating columns of numbers like:

    1 2 3 4 5 6
    7 8 9 10 11 12

    Now since no prime occurs in the 4th or 6th columns something super duper awesomely revolutionary can be inferred. I think they babble something about infinite primes happening in the 1st and 5th column having some deep meaning, infinite primes in Dirichlet series perhaps? Also, once you get far enough making this chart you must ‘switch’ the columns somehow and the exact point you switch at is given by the “true inverse of 0” or something deep like that.

    The are a few other stunning points as well, something about the universe being the inverse of the angle 19, and the inverse of the inverse 19 is the ex-verse of Whinnie the Pooh and thus relativity is not internally consistent.

    I will save the most beautiful, elegant, and deep of their ideas for last. Get ready, this will blow you away and forever change your life. Are you ready? Here it comes…

    The real 0 is not zero, but rather the real zero is in fact -1. Now the universe insists that -1 is the smallest prime by the ‘paragon of 19’.

    I am in awe and have been humbled. This has in the period of 20 minutes made me realize that I could never attain such dazzling heights of super-duper-dom and will never attempt a proof again as my feeble attempt will never compare to theirs.

    Hope you enjoy.

    oh, and I apologize for my typos… I

    • Dan Draney said

      Thanks for dropping by and for the comment. I enjoyed it. This Escultura business is seemingly evergreen. I should probably create a special Escultura page to summarize all the stuff here on that guy. Looking at the post you link to, I’m about 95% sure it’s intended as satire of Dr. E.


      • Dan said


        I thought it was satire as well, it’s not. These guys were posting all over sci.math and other forums. Apparently Hope Research if founded by a physician and a farmer/mechanic from Virginia I believe. Try searching for “inverse 19 mathematics” of “paragon of 19 mathematics”, it’s all over the place.

        I’ve been helping a friend write a paper for one of his classes. The assignment was to choose a crank and one of his papers, then discredit it. Cool assignment I think. So to help I’ve been reading all sorts of this stuff, and I’m truly amazed by it.

        Aside from that, nice blog!


  2. Dan Draney said

    Cool assignment, indeed. I’m quite sure I wouldn’t want to be treated by that “physician,” so I’ll have to tread carefully, if I get sick in Virginia.

    Sometimes reality is stranger than satire. This seems to be one of those times.


    • Dan said

      I looked around and found their webpage. Take a look at

      Upon reading some of this stuff, well, it doesn’t make any sense. Not in the sense that it is mathematically incorrect, but rather I really can’t understand what they are saying. Here is an example:

      ” That the squared plane of mathematics proportions with the currently recognized “squared center” is mathematically complimented by a second curved plane of the circle.One squared plane represented by the value 4(infinite) squared center , and the other by the value 3 curved center(non- infinite closed universe). These centers and planes are at a tangent to each other as shown and proven here under. This mathematics describes the tangent values and the total prime number placement . Inverse 19 happens to satisfy 1:3 divergence/convergence, with half-line tangents at 1/6 (1/6+1/6=1/3).

      So upon reconsidering your point that it may be satire, I concede you may be correct. It seems to me to be somewhat grammatically correct, but devoid of any meaning. Perhaps this is put out there to illustrate that arguing with cranks is about as productive as trying to argue with the nonsensical things written on this site. If you happen to be able to understand this, well, please do explain. If you understand what they are trying to argue, correct or not, with the endless string of addition and multiplication of seemingly random numbers, I am intrigued.

      If anyone reading this happens to be able to translate this inverse 19 business for me I would appreciate it. Or perhaps someone has seen some sort of axiomatic treatment of their ideas, if so, show me where. Who am I kidding… it must be late or something.


    • Dan said

      Upon reading a little more on the above website I saw the following:

      “PROFESSOR EDGAR ESCULTURA PHD , MADISON , WISCONSIN, has acknowledged in writing that Inverse 19 represents a “new plane and a new mathematics” and he has been duly honored on a 500 year , 12 ton monument , at Athens Wisconsin, USA ”

      So yes, you in fact must be correct. Strange unintelligible satire, but satire.


    • Dan said

      Ok, sorry for the ten millions posts, but you gotta see this. If the image on this page is real, well… I’m speechless. If it is fake and meant as a joke, then these guys are hilarious. If it is fake and meant as some sort of validation or proof of a perverted sense of peer review, then a small part of my faith in humanity has just died.


      • Dan Draney said

        I’m pretty sure it’s all a joke, satirizing the posts of Dr. E on math forums and blogs. He typically lays out a bunch of nonsense, not too much more nonsensical than these guys, and then just keeps posting more of the same until others give up.

        You can follow my journey through the magical, mystery world of EEE from here:

        Sadly, most of the old comments he posted were lost. They were on the previous incarnation of this blog on Blogger, and the comment system I used there is no longer available.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: