Monday, January 23, 2012

Kamouna writes; Zahy responds

This is an update to Concerning the NassBook interview. Responding to that earlier post Rafee Kamouna kindly wrote, giving a link to his blog, which is unusual for having 85 comments, but only a single post. Zahy gave a link to Kamouna's paper in the arXiv, and mocked it, wondering whether the correctness of the paper was an undecidable problem. I have re-hosted it on Scribd and embedded it below the fold.

Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna

Zahy in his comments notes a similarity in style to El Naschie. Here's a similarity to another E-infinity group member: When Kamouna writes on his blog

I would be grateful if you point me to any single error in my work and make me stop. Even top journals were not able to do this. I hope you might be able to.

he sounds very much like Otto Rössler:

my results stay un-disproved for 4 years... prove me wrong, as no one hopes for more dearly than I do.

These guys have been shown their errors over and over again.

Translate English to Arabic
محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى


  1. The fact that the papers are in review for 2 years without rejection refutes what you are saying.

    Mention anybody showed any error in my lambda calculus papers referred to in my blog.


    Rafee Kamouna.

  2. Rafee, if the paper has been in review for two years, you should probably consider that a bad sign, not an encouraging one.

  3. To me it sounds like they dismissed it as a crackpot paper not worth reviewing. Did they acknowledge receipt two years ago?

  4. Not unrelated is the Nigerian El Naschie who "proved" the Riemann hypothesis, where others couldn't "because they did not seek God’s face and God closed their minds and they got using advanced approaches":

    At the end, he opines on P=NP.

    Dare I check the editorial board of this journal "Research Journal of Mathematics and Statistics " for you know who?...

  5. They acknowledged receipt after 15 days, after 7 months, then after 18 months when I followed by another paper.

    So, they confirmed that my papers are in review for all that period. I did not prove that P=NP. Instead I proved the contradictory:
    P=NP iff P!=NP.


    Rafee Kamouna.

  6. Yes, it is. Clearly unscientific discussion that deosn't compare to me as I'm relating everything to the scientific community and journals.