Chandler Davis of University Toronto as editor of Mathematical Intelligencer. From around 1993 to early 2000, stealing AP's Usenet posted Correcting Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof in sci.math, later published in his Correcting Math book.

My 14th published book

Correcting Math// Math focus series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In the 1990s, I took a survey of Math Professors doing a simple math proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof, and found that 84% of Math Professors failed to deliver a valid proof in that survey. The reason I believe this poor performance is that math professors for the most part are never required to take Logic courses while in college, to teach them how to think straight, think clearly. As a result, the world is cluttered with their fake mathematics with no hope of cleaning up their messes. And instead of fixing their mistakes and errors, they keep on cluttering the world with more fake math.

I propose that all math professors be required to take Logic in College as a mandatory requirement. Further, I recommend that all math prizes such as Abel, Fields, etc, that all math prizes awarded to those that can show they first fixed errors "fixed something of Old Math" before any of their manuscript of a proof of something else new in math be considered or given a look-over. That is-- prove yourself first -- you can fix math before we want to look at your new offerings. Show yourself as being math intelligent by fixing errors, rather than throw another error filled fake-proof onto mathematics-- Appel & Haken fake 4 Color Mapping, Wiles's fake FLT, Hales's fake Kepler Packing, Tao & Green fake number theory proof. Show us you can fix math, then we can consider anything new you want to offer.

Cover picture: A tractrix formed by a pocket-watch on graph paper, for this is how infinity borderline is determined.

Product details
File Size: 2026 KB
Print Length: 722 pages
Publication Date: March 15, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ2CXBY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

My 88th published book

Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.

And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.

At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.

I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.

It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.

However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.

Length: 147 pages

Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)

Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math.. Intelligencer magazine

Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.

Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.

MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".

Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.

So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...

Dr. Chandler Davis when editor of Mathematical Intelligencer, steals the work of AP's Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, work I had done in early 1990s and there Davis publishes my work under names of different authors in 2009. Davis and Thorp just have not accepted the idea that Internet is "not free stealing grounds".

Quoting from my book-- Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium

Newsgroups: sci.physics, soc.history, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 9 2011 1:22 pm
Subject: Scardigli and arXiv, and QM of Titius-Bode rule priority? new book: #9 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute

On Sep 9, 1:17 am, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:

(snipped in large part)

Now I need to shorten the title of this book and so far I have adopted
this as the title:
"Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute"
Maybe I can improve that even more, along the way
As mentioned often in this book, of the newness of the Internet and 
Usenet and that newness 
will create problems with the old media way of publishing science 
ideas. There were 
numerous problems in old media coverage of science, but when Usenet 
came around circa 1990, 
the proper attribute for new ideas had to be re-examined. And it left 
decades open of 
misappropriation of new ideas.
Now Mr Scardigli mentions above that he inserted a "errors corrected 
and more references cited" 
as a second edition to his first edition. I still do not see where he 
references Archimedes Plutonium 
Usenet posts to sci.physics on the Titius Bode Rule as quantum 
mechanics.
But what Mr. Scardigli has done by using a correction page to update, 
offers us a solution to 
the problem of "theft-without-proper-attribute." And this is what I 
tried to get Chandler Davis 
editor of Mathematical Intelligencer to do with his published article 
of "Prime Simplicity" of 2009 
was to include in a future correction page of Mathematical 
Intelligencer the name of Archimedes Plutonium 
with the referencing of my thousand or so Usenet posts on the subject 
for which I had priority.
So whereas the Usenet science newsgroups offers superior date-time- 
group for new ideas. The Usenet can be 
corrected of theft-by-improper-attribute by the insertion of the 
reference in a "Correction Page".
So that if Mr. Scardigli were to include Archimedes Plutonium, posts 
to sci.physics in a future correction page, then this episode is over 
with and ended. And if Chandler Davis with Mathematical Intelligencer 
in a future correction page of that magazine cites Archimedes 
Plutonium: posts to sci.math on Euclid Infinitude of Primes corrected, 
then that issue is over with.
So we begin to see the problem and it is a huge problem, and we begin 
to see a clearcut solution by authors, that they can correct priority 
rights through a Correction page citing those earlier sources.
Now I want to talk briefly about the opposite and rather insidious 
phenomenon that is occurring on Usenet as a publishing medium, that 
was there also in old media publishing but not so obnoxious and not so 
widespread. It is what can be considered the inverse of not including 
a reference to that of over-including a reference to the detriment of 
the source. What I am talking about is what has been dubbed as 
"bombing, Google bombing or 
search engine bombing." So that when you are reading a article about 
coal, you have reference to old articles written by Archimedes 
Plutonium to the planet Mars and whether Mars has coal.
Science before the Internet was worried about citing original sources. 
With the Internet a new problem arises 
where search engines are hyper-sensitive and will list references to 
authors for which the only element in common was a few words.
So in science, we still have the problem of proper citation to 
scientists with original ideas, but we also have a new problem on our 
hands of drowning authors of science with the pollution of search 
engine bombing 
on those authors. In a sense, this happened in old media science where 
a tabloid press would talk about a 
famous scientist, for which that scientist would rather that the 
tabloid never discussed him or his work, 
at all.