MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Recently, while looking for articles and documents to learn about the Riemann Hyopthesis, I came across a strange funny document of a chinese "mathematician" called Jiang Chun-Xuang who claimed to have disproved the RH, and he also said to have proved the Fermat's Last Theorem, before Wiles; the Golbach's Conjecture and more things.

This is not the first time I see how there is some people who have claimed to have solved problems without solving them, e.g. Chun-Xuang uses Euler's product in the critical strip without being it valid there.

So, what is my point? I am planning to write an article in which putting together all these people together, analyzing them and showing what is the difference between real mathematicians and these pseudo-mathematicians. In this way a confrontation is made in order to help people distinguish a person who really uses mathematics and someone who use mathematics only in appearance.

Thus I am interested in producing a list with all these people in order to have a good amount of examples before starting with my article.

share|cite|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Lee Mosher, Henry Cohn, David Jordan, Steven Landsburg, Chandan Singh Dalawat Apr 5 '13 at 15:44

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

It's a tricky subject that needs to be handled very tactfully, but your article could make a valuable contribution and I would be interested in reading it. On the other hand, compiling a list like this is not a good fit for MO (it is likely to lead to extended discussion and controversy). – Henry Cohn Apr 5 '13 at 15:29
I understand your motivation, but this seems very unsuitable for MO as subjective and argumentative. (And potentially a bit mean: what if you label me as a charlatan, when in reality I'm just an honest but really incompetent mathematician?) – user5117 Apr 5 '13 at 15:31
Artie Prendergast-Smith makes an excellent point about the word "charlatan". Just to be clear, that word implies intentional dishonesty. – Henry Cohn Apr 5 '13 at 15:50
Josué Tonelli Cueto: right, I knew you were looking for examples of genuine dishonesty (if that's not an oxymoron). By the way, the answers that appeared suggest a form of the question that might have a chance of staying open: you could ask for published works discussing mathematical charlatans, rather than just names. But you should probably try discussing any revision on meta first. – user5117 Apr 5 '13 at 16:30
I vote not to reopen this (!) – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Apr 5 '13 at 23:56

You should look to the work of Underwood Dudley on mathematical cranks.

share|cite|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.