3 ms·
I can't believe this is a published article. 3/4 of the paper is essentially crackpottery (e.g. Proposition 5 proves that the composition of surjective maps is
by lilfrost 10y ago
I can't believe this is a published article. 3/4 of the paper is essentially crackpottery (e.g. Proposition 5 proves that the composition of surjective maps is surjective), while the final 1/4 is a "proof by picture" (see Figure 6) that you'd see from a mediocre undergraduate pset.
- espeed 10y agoThe figures ("pictures") aren't part of the proof, they're part of the presentation, and Figure 6, as stated in the paper, is included as a reference to an analogous work.
- laqq3 10y agoIf you read the last 1/4 of the paper, you'll see that Figure 6 is an integral part of the discussion; furthermore, nothing in the discussion is proven rigorously --- they all appeal to the picture. That is exactly what a proof by picture is.
- pavas 10y agoProposition 5 proves that the composition of surjective maps are _necessarily_ surjective only when the second map is monotone continuous. Based on the definition of surjectivity given, you can have a composition of surjective maps that isn't surjective.
- nerdponx 10y agoIt looks like a manuscript to me.