I am not sure if I share your enthusiasm about impaling Prof. He regarding two issues:
1. There seems to be a "Chinese" rivalry between Dr. Liao and Dr. He about the homotopy method. The former calls it the homotopy analysis method and the latter calls it the homotopy perturbation method. Dr. Liao did not start with this name initially and switched to it after a few years. In my opinion the two methods share the same philosophy, namely, introducing a parameter p and varying p continuously from 0 to 1. For p = 0, the problem reduces to one which can be solved rather trivially, and of course, for p = 1 the solution to the original problem is recovered. Both Dr. Liao and Dr. He start with the same "original" idea. The idea itself does not belong to either of them. In 1970s the idea was extensively used by Prof. L.T. Watson and others to obtain the numerical solution of highly nonlinear problems using the homotopy method. What Dr. Liao and Dr. He did was to use the latest developments in the evolution of computer technology to derive the analytical solutions using computer algebra systems. Dr. Liao specialized by introducing auxiliary parameters, especially h, to control the convergence of the perturbation series in p. Dr. He on the other hand used more creative ideas of introducing parameters and optimizing them so that the convergence could be achieved in a very few number of iterations (3-4). Dr. Liao's technique uses many more iterations - to the order of 50 or so. In my opinion they are both very valuable ideas and there is no reason for putting down one and lauding the other.
2. You are angered by Dr. He extolling some not that well-known scientist [El Naschie] to be on par with Newton and Einstein. We ought to appreciate that researchers have their opinions about the work of their contemporaries and notwithstanding how much it may sound outrageous that should not affect the evaluation of that person's research. I am quite close to some of the researchers who rail against Dr. He, yet I do not judge them on their allegations against Dr. He, but rather on their own research.
I will look further at the links provided by you, but please bear in mind that my opinion about Dr. He will be solely determined by the quality of his work, and not on how he thinks about others or what others think about him.
And then this from the most recent email (Fernández background here, here and here; HAM and HPM background here):
You have mentioned about Prof. Fernández. I have read some of his papers. I suppose he has picked up on some of the contributions made in the name of HPM. Unfortunately there are some researchers who have employed the HPM without the discretion used by Dr. He and others and they came up with some really absurd results, which Prof. Fernández has rightly singled out for condemnation. I have also pointed out this fact to Dr. He in my emails to him, indicating that the HPM is being misused by some researchers. I have not printed my findings similar to that of Prof. Fernández as I felt that the offending people might think that I have something personal against them, which honestly speaking I don't. In fact I have rejected dozens of papers on HPM which have come to me for review because they were in Prof. Fernández's words "useless", but this was done anonymously. In any case I think I can better utilize my time and energies on something more constructive rather than indulging in time wasting polemics.
So Prof. Fernández's objections are well founded. However, I disagree with him that the three methods are useless. There ARE some problems for which the homotopy method (HAM or HPM) succeeds whereas other methods would fail. Besides these methods give analytical results which in general are superior in landing the physical insight into the problems. I somehow prefer HPM as it gives an analytical result in very few iterations, and it is a lot easier to draw meaningful conclusions from those tidy expressions than those derived from the HAM using 50 iterations or so.
Again, for me it is not a big issue what Dr. He thinks about this "great" scientist El Naschie. Frankly I have never heard about him, and I do not consider it worthwhile to pursue him.
Posts about Ji-Huan He:
- Status report on the Ji-Huan He project
- SIAM president attacks El Naschie and Ji-Huan He!
- Master list of Ji-Huan He's editorial positions
- Francisco M. Fernández on Ji-Huan He
- Another Fernández review of Ji-Huan He's papers
- A supporter of Ji-Huan He speaks up
- In defense of Prof. Ji-Huan He
- El Naschie, Ji-Huan He, and nanotechnology
- Guess who's looking for Ji-Huan He
- Can't pull the wool over Fred's eyes
- Another Chaos, Solitons and Fractals liability
- huān yíng nín, xiāng gǎng !
- Science prize prediction posted on the Internet