What are Santilli's isonumbers? 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.
 A: 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.  
