How paper with "God" word can pass peer-review in math-journal?

[questfortruth]

ABSTRACT
My result is bold enough: "No Millennium Problem solved yet because Perelman is wrong."
But the paper includes part, where the word "God" is used. Can in today atheistic climate such banned word be used? In view of my Religion, the word "God" must be used even in the pure mathematics papers, because there is the commandment to me: "For whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." Luke 9:26.

INTRODUCTION
I only present my opinion, for questions write to me: Dmitri Martila,
[email protected]. Today is 29.June.2020.
Friends, I am using the sentences, which I write here with inspiration from the discussion, into my papers (I am not using your sentences because it is your intellectual property). Namely, I am planning to publish a philosophical/sociological paper; and the math paper with the proof in the introduction, what I am not a retarded one: I should be trusted.

CV:
School is completed with Gold Medal (1993),
Tartu University (physics) - cum laude (1997),
Authorship in Physical Review E, European Physical J. B.
I am in no way a retarded one, just different.
I am different from a billion people.

MY IDEA
Quote from Wikipedia article "Poincare Conjecture":

"He wanted to cut the manifold at the singularities and paste in caps (PROBLEM), and then run the Ricci flow again... In essence Perelman showed that all the strands that form can be cut and capped (PROBLEM)... "

To my notice, the above PROBLEM is: the caps do not belong to the original manifold; thus, there is no direct correspondence between the original manifold and the final sphere. In conclusion, this PROBLEM violates the formulation of the Poincare Conjecture:

Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere.

THIS PART WOULD HELP TO PASS PEER-REVIEW
To be passing the peer-review more adequately and with intellectual joy,
I am adding this psychological section (I can delete it on your request).
The reason you lost childish joy in refereeing and what to do:
"You have patiently suffered for me without quitting.
But I have this against you: You have abandoned the love you had at first.
Remember then how far you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first.
Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless
you repent." Revelation 2:3 NLT, Revelation 2:4,5 CSB.
The goal "to find mistakes" could be a bad attitude. The final goal should be to
find joy in reading. If the flaws become seen, then they must be
reported, however, without any laughs and any sadistic enjoyment. Reported
with tears of sadness. By the way, many skeptics read the Bible every day only because to
find kompromat against God of the Bible, and they interpret the text in such
a bizarre way, that the God of Love and Truth becomes disproven. The
psychologists have conducted a social experiment: they told the public that the man
in the photo is a serial killer. The public has found out that he is looking like one. The
next day they told another group that the man on
the same photo is an American national hero; the public has confirmed his
heroic look. In conclusion, having skepticism as your default position, while
starting a new manuscript of an unknown author, increases the chances for the
paper to be unjustly rejected.

 

[Native]

In view of my Religion, the word "God" must be used even in the pure mathematics papers . .,

If the "Poincare Conjecture" needs "God" to be explained, I think you´re in the deep. It´s bad enough if it only can be explained by math.

Does this "conjecture" even exist in the real world?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How paper with "God" word can pass peer-review in math-journal?

The same way as a paper with the invocation of the "magical unicorn".

 

[epronovost]

@questfortruth

Why is your section called "abtract" not an abstract and your section "introduction" not an introduction either? Your text structure is terrible. "Abstract" and "Introduction" aren't pretty words to make you sound smart. They are components of a text. They serve a function and you seem to completely ignore it. While we are on the subject, if you attempt to publish a paper, you might want to make a serious double check on your grammar and syntax. English isn't my firt language and I can see about about a dozen errors of those types in your OP (I strongly suspect english isn't your first language either so I would recommand you have someone help you for the translation or publish your article in your first language).

 

[epronovost]

The same way as a paper with the invocation of the "magical unicorn".

You could probably use it as a rethorical flourish of some sort, but if yo want to talk about deities, publish a paper in a theology journals not a mathematics one.

 

[February-Saturday]

I am very confused.

You have a degree in physics and you're publishing a paper in mathematics. Okay. A little odd, but that does happen from time to time.

Then you go on to talk about philosophy, sociology, and psychology, with an excerpt from Wikipedia. Do you even have degrees in those subjects? Why would they be appropriate to go into for a math journal, assuming that you did? Why are you using Wikipedia?

That last part will definitely not help you pass your peer-review if you're including it. I would ask you to rewrite your paper if I received that before I even considered publishing it. It's not because you reference God, but you're proselytizing using scripture and demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the peer-review process that's so integral to science as a whole. Particularly, it does not understand skepticism, which is impossible to divorce from the scientific method and especially in the formal sciences like mathematics. Where did you get the idea that skepticism is about starting with the assumption that you're wrong, or even that it's somehow divorced from science? Is it just a translation problem?

Worse, it sounds like you're adding it to a section of your paper that's supposed to be formatted to share the results as clearly and concisely as possible. A lot of these papers are already hard enough to understand and review as it is, why would you make it even harder by adding gibberish that isn't even relevant to the section?

Where and why do you use the word "God?" Why are you opposed to secularism in science? Why are you quoting scripture when it just obfuscates your point and annoys most people that disagree with you?

 

[ChristineM]

I am different from a billion people.

In fact you are unique, just like everyone else

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You could probably use it as a rethorical flourish of some sort, but if yo want to talk about deities, publish a paper in a theology journals not a mathematics one.

Theology is not a science though.

 

[Native]

English isn't my firt language . . .

It isn´t mine either - but I´ll type an initial situation as the "FIRST" Never mind This happens frequently to me too

 

[RabbiO]

@epronovost -

No, English is not the OP’s first language which is readily apparent with every “paper” he has shared on this forum. Aways back I suggested to the poster that he might be brilliant, he might have brilliant ideas, important ideas to share, but that no one in the English speaking world would ever know because his English writing skills were substandard.

I suggested that he find someone more proficient with English to translate. That suggestion earned only the OP’s enmity. He insisted then and has insisted since that his English skill is beyond reproach.

 

[Polymath257]

ABSTRACT
My result is bold enough: "No Millennium Problem solved yet because Perelman is wrong."
But the paper includes part, where the word "God" is used. Can in today atheistic climate such banned word be used? In view of my Religion, the word "God" must be used even in the pure mathematics papers, because there is the commandment to me: "For whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." Luke 9:26.

INTRODUCTION
I only present my opinion, for questions write to me: Dmitri Martila,
[email protected]. Today is 29.June.2020.
Friends, I am using the sentences, which I write here with inspiration from the discussion, into my papers (I am not using your sentences because it is your intellectual property). Namely, I am planning to publish a philosophical/sociological paper; and the math paper with the proof in the introduction, what I am not a retarded one: I should be trusted.

CV:
School is completed with Gold Medal (1993),
Tartu University (physics) - cum laude (1997),
Authorship in Physical Review E, European Physical J. B.
I am in no way a retarded one, just different.
I am different from a billion people.

MY IDEA
Quote from Wikipedia article "Poincare Conjecture":

"He wanted to cut the manifold at the singularities and paste in caps (PROBLEM), and then run the Ricci flow again... In essence Perelman showed that all the strands that form can be cut and capped (PROBLEM)... "

To my notice, the above PROBLEM is: the caps do not belong to the original manifold; thus, there is no direct correspondence between the original manifold and the final sphere. In conclusion, this PROBLEM violates the formulation of the Poincare Conjecture:

Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere.

THIS PART WOULD HELP TO PASS PEER-REVIEW
To be passing the peer-review more adequately and with intellectual joy,
I am adding this psychological section (I can delete it on your request).
The reason you lost childish joy in refereeing and what to do:
"You have patiently suffered for me without quitting.
But I have this against you: You have abandoned the love you had at first.
Remember then how far you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first.
Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless
you repent." Revelation 2:3 NLT, Revelation 2:4,5 CSB.
The goal "to find mistakes" could be a bad attitude. The final goal should be to
find joy in reading. If the flaws become seen, then they must be
reported, however, without any laughs and any sadistic enjoyment. Reported
with tears of sadness. By the way, many skeptics read the Bible every day only because to
find kompromat against God of the Bible, and they interpret the text in such
a bizarre way, that the God of Love and Truth becomes disproven. The
psychologists have conducted a social experiment: they told the public that the man
in the photo is a serial killer. The public has found out that he is looking like one. The
next day they told another group that the man on
the same photo is an American national hero; the public has confirmed his
heroic look. In conclusion, having skepticism as your default position, while
starting a new manuscript of an unknown author, increases the chances for the
paper to be unjustly rejected.

Well, any decent editor would have you cut everything here as it is completely irrelevant to the math.

Suggestion: get to the point. Either prove your result or show a mistake in a published result.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I think that the OP has been deleted.
Now that is a first for me on this forum.

 

[questfortruth]

Particularly, it does not understand skepticism

Thank you. I will not mention the word skepticism in the paper for Duke Math. Journal. The top journal in the field. However, I will say "desire of finding the mistakes". Look, how it is now:

To be passing the peer-review more adequately and with intellectual joy,
I am adding this psychological section (I can delete it on your request).

\subsection{The reason you lost childish joy in refereeing and what to do}

The goal ``to find mistakes'' could be a bad attitude. The final goal should
be enjoy reading. If the flaws become seen, then they must be reported,
however, without any laughs and any sadistic enjoyment. Instead, reported with
tears of sadness.

The psychologists have conducted a social experiment: they told the probants
that the man on the photo is a serial killer. The probants testified that he
is looking like one. The next day they told another group of probants that the
man on the same photo is an American national hero; these probants have
confirmed his heroic look. In conclusion, having the "mistakes desire" as your default
position while reading the manuscript of an unknown author increases the
chances for the paper to be unjustly rejected.

\section{Equivalent formulation of Goldbach's strong conjecture}

 

[epronovost]

Theology is not a science though.

No, indeed, it's considered in the domain of humanities. That doesn't mean that like history or linguistics for example there isn't a body of academic publications with a critical methodology and a peer review system. Sciences aren't the only forms of critical inquiries.