A Comment on "On Some Contradictory Computations in Multi-dimensional Mathematics"

E. Capelas de Oliveira,W. A. Rodrigues Jr
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0603599
2006-03-27
Abstract:In this paper we analyze the status of some `unbelievable results' presented in the paper `On Some Contradictory Computations in Multi-Dimensional Mathematics' [1] published in Nonlinear Analysis, a journal indexed in the Science Citation Index. Among some of the unbelievable results `proved' in the paper we can find statements like that: (i) a linear transformation which is a rotation in R^2 with rotation angle theta different from nphi/2, is inconsistent with arithmetic, (ii) complex number theory is inconsistent. Besides these 'results' of mathematical nature [1],offers also a `proof' that Special Relativity is inconsistent. Now, we are left with only two options (a) the results of [1] are correct and in this case we need a revolution in Mathematics (and also in Physics) or (b) the paper is a potpourri of nonsense. We show that option (b) is the correct one. All `proofs' appearing in [1] are trivially wrong, being based on a poor knowledge of advanced calculus notions. There are many examples (some of them discussed in [2,3,4,5,6]of complete wrong papers using nonsequitur Mathematics in the Physics literature. Taking into account also that a paper like [1] appeared in a Mathematics journal we think that it is time for editors and referees of scientific journals to become more careful in order to avoid the dissemination of nonsense.
General Mathematics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to analyze and refute the so - called "incredible results" proposed in another paper "On Some Contradictory Computations in Multi - Dimensional Mathematics". Specifically, these results include: 1. **Rotation Inconsistency**: It is claimed that the rotation \(T_\theta: \mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^2, \theta\neq n\pi/2\) in two - dimensional space is inconsistent with arithmetic. 2. **Complex Number Theory Inconsistency**: It is claimed that the complex number theory is inconsistent. 3. **Lorentz Transformation Inconsistency**: It is claimed that the Lorentz transformation in special relativity holds only when the velocity \(v = 0\), otherwise it is self - contradictory. If these problems were valid, they would have a significant impact on the foundations of mathematics and physics. However, the authors Capelas de Oliveira and Rodrigues believe that these conclusions are wrong and have proven this through detailed analysis. They point out that the author Carvalho of the original paper has misunderstandings of the basic concepts of advanced calculus, which have led to these wrong conclusions. ### Main Problem Summary 1. **Questioning of Mathematical Foundations**: - The original paper claims that multivariate mathematics is inconsistent with arithmetic, which is clearly wrong. For example, Carvalho wrongly believes that the linear transformation \(T: \mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^2\) does not conform to the arithmetic rules. 2. **Questioning of Complex Number Theory**: - The original paper claims that the complex number theory is inconsistent, but this is based on a misunderstanding of coordinate transformation. In fact, the complex number theory is strict and consistent. 3. **Questioning of Special Relativity**: - The original paper claims that the Lorentz transformation does not hold when \(v\neq0\), which is a misunderstanding of the basic concepts of special relativity. In fact, the Lorentz transformation is the core of special relativity and has been widely verified. ### Analysis and Refutation Capelas de Oliveira and Rodrigues refute Carvalho's views through the following points: 1. **Application of the Implicit Function Theorem**: - They point out that Carvalho ignored the basic requirements of the implicit function theorem when dealing with coordinate transformations, which led to errors in his derivations. 2. **Misunderstanding of Physical Meanings**: - Carvalho misinterpreted some parameters with the dimension of velocity as "natural velocities", thus reaching wrong conclusions. In fact, these parameters do not represent actual velocities, so they do not need to satisfy the condition of \(a^2 < c^2\). 3. **Misunderstanding of Advanced Calculus**: - Carvalho has insufficient understanding of basic concepts in advanced calculus such as Jacobian determinants and the chain rule, which has led to serious logical errors in his reasoning. ### Conclusion The main purpose of this paper is to reveal the serious errors in Carvalho's paper and emphasize that editors and reviewers should review manuscripts more strictly in scientific journals to avoid spreading wrong information. Through detailed analysis, Capelas de Oliveira and Rodrigues clearly show that Carvalho's conclusions are based on misunderstandings of the basic concepts of advanced calculus and physics, and are therefore completely wrong.