Abdallah's Blog has contemporaneous commentary about it, overlooked by El Naschie Watch until just now, reproduced in full below the fold.

**El Naschie... Yet Another Kamouna!!**

I just watched Hala Sarhan interview Mohamed El Naschie, a presidential candidate.

The guy was introduced as the leading physicist in the 21st century. For a second, I was embarrassed I did not recognize a fellow Egyptian who is such a leading figure.

A quick Google search showed that the guy is a fraud. He authors papers in a journal moderated by himself. His inflated impact factor is just a result of a standard trick employed by fraudulent scientists.

Anyways, that can just be the evil western Google manipulating public opinion to dismiss the existence of any Egyptian scientists. Listening to his interview sealed the deal. He dismissed relativity theory as theoretical luxury, theories which have no practical application yet, but might find some place in practice in the far future. He made some other comments that hardly depart from an educated brain.

For a second, I got some pleasant flashbacks of Kamouna, the Egyptian scientist who solved (or rather dissolved) P vs. NP, continuum hypothesis, …etc. by using.. <drums>.. Prolog.

I will not go further into any details regarding his real scientific status. Interested readers can google him.

The comparison is to Dr. Rafee Kamouna. The Saudi Gazette has a moderately credulous article about him.

By the way, if you Google El Naschie as Abdallah suggests, you know where you end up.

Thanks to Shrink for this great find.

Prof Rafee Kamouna obviously solved the P vs. NP problem. The exact scientific status of his claims is that his P vs NP papers (http://kamouna.wordpress.com) is "under review" by the Theory of Computing Journal since February 2010. For a complete 24 months the journal did not reject any of the papers neither willing to accept nor sent any review report. What does this mean to you? How can this compare to self-publishing or self-citation?

ReplyDeleteAre you an expert theoretical computer scientist to judge my work?

The official status of my Quantum Gravity theory (the problem that eluded and frustrated Einstein for decades is "lack of formal rigor" by the Foundation of Physics journal in 2008. But based on my P vs NP results lack of rigor is impossible since ZFC is inconsistent.

Again, how can this compare to self-publishing or self-citation?

If you are a scientist by any means reveal your identity and attend the battles in the scientific marketplace to put yourself in the right size.

Best,

Rafee Kamouna

Really Prof Rafee Kamouna is amazing, you can amuse yourself by just reading his article

ReplyDeleteA Spatio-Temporal Bi-Polar Disorder

Quantum Theory of Gravity

A Fuzzy Logic Programming Reconciliation

SySBP D ⇐⇒ SpT BP D

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.2947v8.pdf

His article is two part, the first is about

aP = NP

The Kleene-Rosser Paradox

The Liar’s Paradox

&

A Fuzzy Logic Programming Paradox

=⇒

SAT is (NOT) NP-completerticle

and the second part about quantum gravity starting from page 34

It is a really master piece for a crackpot,

when you read it you will quickly remember El naschie's style and I don't know why he is not referring to El naschie's pioneering works in Fuzzy logic and its application to high energy physics.

Amazing statement in Kamouna's work on quantum gravity

"... Dirac’s two solutions are two wave functions, for particles and antiparticles. Both are related by another SySBP D F LP predicate Quantum. The

two manifolds with both wave functions are related by κ, the Universe Bi-Polar

Disorder Constant, the prediction of SpT BP D..."

".. SpT BP D regards gravitational waves (spacetime/timespace Bi-Polar Disorder) in curved space time as a result of fermion spin-like angular motion

(in a Hilbert space) of ﬂat spacetime and ﬂat timespace..."

"...The mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (Hilbert spaces) could

be uniﬁed with that of general relativity. The view of two Lorentzian manifolds in Bi-Polar Disorder (BP D-conformally related) can be restricted to

two ﬂat spacetime/timespace at quantum level. So, space/time dichotomy

(spacetime vs. timespace) at both the super-galactic and the sub-atomic

levels..."

"..When the (poor) author ﬁrst learnt of the 720 degrees for an electron to

return to its original state, it was no surprise unlike many others. This is a

natural SpT BP D quantum view of in-order and disorder states..."

"..When the (poor) author learnt that “CP violation” is not complete symmetry, he felt that was absolutely normal and consistent with SpT BP D.

SpT BP D predicts Bi-Polar Disorder in nature rather than symmetry. But

in order to maintain the order, there has to be disorder (from the Big

Bang to the expansion of the Universe), resulting whenever the symmetry

attempts to become complete, it could recur somewhere else incomplete.."

"..the author presents the hypothesis that a ﬁnal theory wouldn’t need only inﬁnite number of axioms, but

also a mathematical language whose alphabet is inﬁnite!.."

The man is really an interesting case and is a clear example for a crackpot who doesn't know physics nor mathematics. The man's work is not even wrong.

In fact Elnaschie's watch is becoming a trap for crackpots.

Kamouna's claim about resolving P vs NP problem was starting from 2008 and you will find 8 version for his article on http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.2947v8.pdf

ReplyDeleteI don't know why it needs so long time to decide if Kamouna's procedure is correct or not. Maybe it is undecidable problem. Like Elnaschie's ideas, it could last a century for his ideas to be understood.

Since you don't reveal your identity, you are the top crackpot.

ReplyDeleteRafee Kamouna.

The comment before: a typical defense mechanism from a - ehm - there's no need to finish the sentence. :D

ReplyDeleteYou're a crackpot, Rafee. Hopefully your paper will be rejected soon.

ReplyDeleteIs it the thirst for money that you get from "solving" the Clay problems that drives people absolutely batshit insane? If these authors are so "smart" why not solve some practical problems; you know, do something useful? No serious academic works on these insane problems, they are a guaranteed career killer. How are you going to produce papers, get grants and graduate students when no progress has been made by anyone in centuries?

ReplyDeleteGrigory Perelman was the last to make any progress within our lifetimes and if you google him you'll see he's off to the deep end, jobless and living with his mom. So, even succeeding in such a quest might be equally bad for your mental health.

On this topic, here's the (n+1)st crackpot:

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=649623&publicationSubCategoryId=75

This time it's about the Navier--Stokes clay problem. He gave a talk at a recent American Physical Society meeting. I had the utmost honorific privilege of being in his to-be-enlightened audience. Lucky for him every member of the society is allowed his 10 minutes. He almost got laughed out of the room. Unsurprisingly, he used up his question time talking and then ran out of the room, not answering any questions. Classic.

(He also has an amazing ability, like the one whom this blog is named after, at attaching himself as 'visitor' at many reputable places, and then using his affiliation to publish complete and utter idiotic nonsense.)

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=649623&publicationSubCategoryId=75. That's funny.

ReplyDeleteYou have nothing objective. Clearly, if you even were undergraduate CS, you would have commented scientifically.

ReplyDeleteYou say P vs. NP is not a practical problem hahahahah.

You are hopless.

You are right, a naive and young undergrad in CS would be drawn by the money and fame.

DeleteAs a Ph.D. in a closely related field, I know too well that this is a fruitless and futile pursuit best left for those (a little) insane.

A proof of whether P=NP or P!=NP is purely a mathematico-philosophical result. It is unlikely the proof would be of the form of an P-time algorithm for solving NP-complete problems.

ReplyDeleteLikewise, a proof or disproof of the long-time regularity of Navier--Stokes is purely a mathematico-philosophical result. Either way, the equations are understood so well, we can built airliners, supersonic jets, space shuttles, quiet submarines...

I know you want to be rich and famous, but let's be realistic here.

You miss type it. It is not P=NP or P!=NP, it is P=NP iff P!=NP, i.e. a contradiction which means mathematics is inconsistent with all its effect in TCS and physics. As you say it is related not only to philosophy but also to the relationship between religion and science as the P vs NP is a meta-mathematical question. I was forced to solve it, it is not my choice.

ReplyDeleteAgain, your comments lack anything objective about my proofs.

Best,

Rafee Kamouna.

Rafee, even as a crackpot you fail.

ReplyDeleteI shall not reply to you since you are the top of all crackpots. You have a website about a single person and you are not revealing your identity!

ReplyDeleteRafee, my identity is not a secret and all my personal details can be easily found by clicking around this website.

ReplyDeleteIf you were to run against El Naschie for political office, I'd vote for him.

This is a great thread. :D

ReplyDeleteaw, i don't bother checking this blog for a few days only to miss this doozy? shame...

ReplyDelete:) Better late than never.

ReplyDelete