Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A friend of mine asked me yesterday about Santilli's isonumbers. I told him that it was quackery. As I based my answer only on the general reputation of the guy and had no knowledge of the subject, I decided to ask this question here.

Question: What is the isonumber? Did any serious mathematician spend any time looking at isomnumbers? What is the conclusion? References would be useful.

share|improve this question
    
I have no idea of what you are talking about, but a little research with google says www.i-b-r.org/docs/jiang.pdf, that seems something like a monograph. –  Ricky Jul 26 '10 at 3:19
3  
«Despite the achievement of the above epoch making generalizations of all pre-existing mathematical and physical theories [...]» That alone surely will get you a high Baez index... –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jul 26 '10 at 3:36
3  
Good to know: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html see also drbronner.com –  Will Jagy Jul 26 '10 at 3:46
9  
See sptimes.com/2007/05/09/Hillsborough/Snubbed_by_mainstream.shtml before answering this question –  Richard Borcherds Jul 26 '10 at 4:52
    
@ Richard Good Warning! Although he seems to be more keen on his physical theories... –  Bugs Bunny Jul 26 '10 at 5:43

2 Answers 2

I looked at Jiang's monograph for a little while last night. Here is what I could get from it (I am now quoting from memory, so my terminology and notation may not be exactly the same). If $F$ is a field (of "numbers"), then the field $\overline{F}$ of "isodual numbers" has the same underlying set and addition operation, but multiplication is replaced by the operation $x \ \overline{\bullet}\ y := - (xy)$. The new multiplicative identity is $-1$.

This is mathematically valid, of course: i.e., $\overline{F}$ really is a field. Moreover it is isomorphic to $F$ via the map $x \mapsto -x$, although I couldn't find a clear statement of that. (But somewhat later on I saw references to the isotopy $F \rightarrow \overline{F}$.) Physically speaking, the isodual numbers are supposed to bear the same relation to the ordinary numbers as antimatter does to matter. (I don't know what that means, but I am not a physicist and so am not even going to worry about it.)

Jiang defines a new function $J_2(\omega)$, which is supposed to be some sort of repaired version of the Riemann zeta function. In one of his published works, he claims that the Riemann hypothesis is false -- in fact, he says, the zeta function has no zeros in the critical strip. [Logically speaking, wouldn't that make the Riemann Hypothesis true? Never mind.] From this definition, he immediately deduces proofs of Goldbach, twin primes, primes of the form $n^2+1$, and several other outstanding number theoretic conjectures -- literally immediately, in that I could find no argumentation for them. First these results are stated for "isonumbers" but later on they are stated for the usual integers.

That's about as far as I got. I also noticed, though, that many of the results described in this monograph were first published as papers by the journal Algebra, Groups and Geometries (founding editor: R.M. Santilli). These papers appear on MathSciNet but are not (going to be) reviewed.

share|improve this answer
3  
I have read Jiang's book today and this is a definite quackery. I have managed to google fprotheory.com/showthread.php?p=206 He seems to be some kind of "mathematician of the people" in China:-)) I wish I could get hold of Santilli's 1993 paper in Algebras, Groups and Geometries... –  Bugs Bunny Jul 26 '10 at 19:23
    
I found his papers with a couple of friends when I was an undergrad and we had some fun browsing through them. If I interpret his "disproof" of the Riemann hypothesis correctly, he starts using the definition $\zeta(s)=\Prod(1-\frac{1}{p^s})$ as if it converged for $\Re(s)<1$, makes a lot of estimates, and concludes that $|\zeta(s)|>C$ for a nonzero constant $C$ --- but, of course, he gets that because the series he is using as a definition is not convergent. –  Federico Poloni Nov 28 '10 at 15:58

Looks like total crackpottery.

share|improve this answer
    
Did you actually understand the definition so that you can say what they are in normal language and why they are of no interest? –  Bugs Bunny Jul 26 '10 at 5:49
    
I read enough of his overview paper to come to that determination. The initial abstract algebra is fine, but it doesn't do what it's claimed to do. –  Charles Jul 26 '10 at 17:06
    
Did you read Santilli's paper or Jiang's book? The latter is indeed useless but I cannot access the former one for now... –  Bugs Bunny Jul 26 '10 at 19:24

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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