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

https://dontletmestopyou.wordpress.com/?s=escultura

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.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan

]]>“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

]]>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

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

Dan

]]>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!

Dan

]]>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.

Best,

Dan

I know this post is rather old, however I would like to direct you to the little gem at http://www.mathkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/math/71161/HEY-MR-NUMBER-THEORIST-19-7-9-7-Exact-4

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

]]>Thanks for the visit & comment. Indeed the Republican incumbents breezed through the primaries without breaking a sweat. Then the Dem primary gave us this odd result. We can only try to affect the climate of ideas in a positive way.

I don’t think I know what “constitutional social justice” means.

]]>I was so taken with your “eek” usage that I intend to steal and use it when appropriate. Kudos for leaving it alone … even when you were notified about it.

Oh – and regarding Harper, Turek, et al … ptg is right – some folks shouldn’t be allowed within shouting distance of a voting booth.

]]>