Re: JSH: Just plain silly

From: W. Dale Hall (mailtowd-hall_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 09/20/04 

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 02:00:33 GMT

Quinn Tyler Jackson wrote:
> W. Dale Hall:
>
>
>>So what is the revisionist history you are carping to sci.math about?
>
>
> 1. "I am glad to infrom you that your paper entitled: 'Advanced Polynomial
> Factorization' has appeared in SWJPAM Issue 2,(2003,pp.6-8.)" (Note: Number,
> date, page range.)
>

OK, except for the misspelling, no problem there.

> 2. Usenet post quoting email to editor: "Dear Sirs, The December 2003 issue
> of your journal, Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
> publishes the article 'Advanced Polynomial Factorization' by James Harris.
> This note is to inform you that the article's main result, the claim that
> the factorization of the polynomial..."
>

Yes, I wrote the editors to inform them of an error. Note that I
specifically did not request the article be retracted. Perhaps in
your field of endeavor, one stands idly by, while an error is
promoted as though it were not one; I don't view mathematics as
being especially tolerant of errors. Since I was one of the
several people who established beyond question that the result
was in error, I believed (and continue to believe) that informing
the editors of such an error was the correct course of action.

If they had requested a submission in the form of a paper, I would
have been glad to oblige; that request was certainly an option they
could have (and probably should have) taken.

> 3. "Your paper entitlled 'Advanced polynomial factorization' has been
> rejected for publication in swjpam. [...] Below you can find portions of the
> reviewers report. [...] Dear Sirs, This note is to inform you that the
> article's main result, the claim that the factorization of the polynomial
> ...." (Note absence of the reference to the fact that the "reviewer's" email
> commenting on the article CAME AFTER PUBLICATION.)
>

Is this something that sci.math had any control over?

Is the action of SWJPAM an action by sci.math or any of its
participants? I agree that it was most likely precipitated by
my note, but one must assume that the editors are free to
engage in what actions they deem most appropriate. Their
error in this regard has been pointed out to them, to my
understanding. My take on the affair is that it is an
indication of their lack of experience in running a technical
journal, and of their absence of understanding of the generally
understood rules for handling disputes.

>
> <Allegedly>
> You know when you sent that email, Dale. Are you comfortable with the fact
> that the first sentence (showing that it came AFTER publication) was
> allegedly removed, so that it would appear to have been a review submitted
> BEFORE publication?
> </Allegedly>
>

I was not sent a copy of this review. In fact, the above is the first
I have seen of this note.

> Revisionist history.
>

OK, so how does this relate to sci.math? Did I ask the editors to
behave in this manner? No. Did I ask to be counted as a reviewer of
SWJPAM? No. Did I request a retraction? No.

I can't answer for any other participant in sci.math, but my suspicion
is that the answers would have been the same for any other person who
is a regular contributor to sci.math.

> Call me a harper. OK. Fine. Do you at all have any understanding of why the
> above made me angry? Or is it just OK when that happens to James Harris
> because special rules of academic protocol apply to James Harris?
>

I can understand why you might feel angry about this. I don't understand
why you imagine that this is in any way my responsibility, unless you
think it's wrong to inform a journal of an error in its publication.

I think your ire should be directed towards the people who have primary
responsibility for the actions of SWJPAM: the editors. If you've already
been in correspondence with them, that's where the discussion belongs,
from my perspective. If you haven't, and have decided that sci.math
should be your whipping boy, then have at it. Go for it. Get your
rocks off, baby.

BTW, I would have written the same note if I had had prior knowledge of
publication, and it would have had the same tone: do with this article
whatever you think best. I would not have acted in the role of an
official reviewer of their articles, for two reasons: I don't have a
general interest in their publication, nor do I have the time to
review articles on a continuing basis. I've already explained why I
wrote my letter to them: I had specific knowledge that the article
in question is fatally flawed, in that it reaches a patently false
conclusion.

As for the query of "special rules" to apply to James Harris, I don't
see why you would ask this question. Have the participants of sci.math,
with the exception of those who are fixated on trading insults with JSH,
attempted to impose "special rules" to technical discussions with JSH?
Does JSH get any worse than he gives? From my reading, the people who
attempt to engage in technical discussions with JSH try to read his
intent without distortion, and address the issues with a minimum of
rancor. On the other hand, JSH consistently assigns corrupt motives
to those he interacts with, and just as consistently decries arguments
that he (apparently) fails to follow as fraudulent, inept, and foolish.

If there is anything "special" about the technical discussions with JSH,
it's the incredible leeway he receives due to his recognized lack of
training. Witness the recent discussion in which JSH maintained that
Andrew Wiles's argument relied on a logical error, in saying that since
four numbers describe one set of things (modular forms) and another set
of things (elliptic curves), the argument was flawed. Of course, if one
actually reads Wiles's article, no such comparison is present. Further,
when JSH posed the so-called "null test", and several people presented
direct responses to his demand that the impact of such a test be
analyzed, he continued to deny that such responses had come forth, and
stated that no one could answer him. He has misstated, perhaps without
intent to do so, the role and content of a theorem placed early in the
paper as essentially assuming the consequent of his main theorem (Wiles
proves that every semistable elliptic curve is modular, and the theorem
in question addresses the ways one can deduce facts about modular forms:
JSH has said on multiple occasions, in the presence of explicit
correction, that Wiles is assuming an elliptic curve to be modular).
In the face of all this, several people attempted to talk sense, but
to no real effect.

My experience is that in life a person generally gets what he dishes
out. JSH acts without respect for honest discussion, without respect
for the persons he is dealing with, and without regard to the
consequences of his actions. In any reasonable newsgroup, he would
find himself without people to talk to; I tend to waver between
deciding to follow my own suggestion and ignore his articles, and
attempting to teach this child some manners by engaging in debate
in a thoughtful way. I'll note that he does not do himself any
favors by his cynical abuse of the process.

Now, does any of that excuse the treatment he received from SWJPAM?
Not at all, and you won't find many in this newsgroup who would argue
otherwise.

> --
> Quinn
>
>

Dale

Relevant Pages

  • Re: May be a short history of JSH? No offense.
    ... After years of claiming no mathematician in ... Gee, publication, AFTER people pointed out that the final conclusion ... have peer-review (despite claiming it), and too many bad papers were ... But this story has a happy ending for JSH; ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: But it just amazes me
    ... JSH wrote: ... sci.math posters mounted an email campaign against my paper which ... spooked the editors who withdrew it against my wishes: ... Is the review process completely anonymous, ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Mathematical proof of factoring problem solution
    ... JSH writes: ... factorization just gives you two cases for the factors: ... You know that when you submit this for publication the reviewers are ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Would a major result get picked up?
    ... JSH wrote: ... The "published author" sticker loses its' shine when your only publication ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Math rules and publication
    ... Oh, no, I believe it was subjected to some standard peer review. ... The following MS has been submitted for publication in SWJPAM. ... Editors, ... I'd say he's going to need a lot of help landing a job. ...
    (sci.math)