ahmet

some bigotries which very common in this forum. step 1: one demonstrates or proposes an opinion. step 2: a well known member attempts to disagree to that opinion. step3 : there is occuring of existence of many members downvoting that opinion (regardless the reality in that opinion, in fact this is a weakness of opinionating). And this is bigotry, isn't it? my opinion: there are many people who carry out just their job but surely not being busy with science (like in this forum). so, is there no scientist all around the world: I think their numbers are very small. eh, none has to agree to me :)

I think that U.S. 's freedom is fake. (We knew that) So, thanks to Allah , I never been to here in spite of my B2 English. (Yeah yes, the language itself does not mean everything) English Society to me is falsifying many things these days, but already has never been right in general. remembering or even reminding a point, they killed more than 200.000 people just in one time. So, speaking fastly they are not good. one interesting point is that there are many people calling stupid albert einstein as a genius which is definitely wrong.yes he was completely stupid. why does not anyone speak alike and see the point: "he produced an absolute a headache for all of humanity" (check my 3rd line in this comment for reference of proof) so, obviously he was completely stupid. and English society these days are also responsible for almost the whole of murders in Gaza. Wild jews/jewishes are the worst of all to me. ah yes, we are saying or even seeing that the sun is shining today. But who can guarantee for tomorrow?

whatever someone says, you will eventually suppose that you were right in every case. May I suppose that this was the "approach/supposition of stupid English Society"? anyway, what I said was exactly: that OP was wrong in his/her assertion. studiot is either. but as said, whatever we say, I am sure that someone will suppose that they were always correct. So, what to discuss here? nothing. And please accept that this is bigotry.

so, obviously you have not learnt anything!

No. (Check your notes or references about basics of algebra.) does it mention or tell about closed or open set? also consider, does a well ordered set have to be open set? I opinionate in negative.

And you suppose I will pay attention what you say in this regard? I do not ask such a thing to someone like you. if I prefer to ask, two criteria are mandatory to be satisfied: he must be muslim he must know me. even in such a case, redirecting the question does not mean that it would certainly be accepted. it will just mean that I would be able to handle/care the opinion.

For sure, it is NOT a joke. But of course that would be the reader's selection to accept the critique or not. Here, or in reality; being poor regarding thoughts/opinions is bad thing (and obviously, that is the thing what I said in other words)

I just looked to the title and; I do not say that the quality was lacking, I prefer to say that there was no quality. This is what that article caused me to think and interrupted me to read further. - my result: the direction or the aim is wrong to me. Consider also, whether the relevant personality who deemed as scientist in that article had psychiaric ilness. .... and is either a delusion or such a minimal relevance that not only neglectable but also waste of time. in general, I tend not to make any comment in such context because I have tendency to deal with only intellectual side of literature. to me, this is Non intellectual aim generated by someone who deemed to deal with scientific contexts. inshaAllah ,Allah will protect me to deal with something which is not necessarily needed.

also, it is pointless. What will the OP do with the number of those axioms,I wonder?

do you mean (something like) "arithmetic units" by "arithmetic(?). (some potential keywords in the contexts that I predict might be are : algebraic numbers, transcendent numbers etc) also, to me : it is not "theory of 'natural' numbers" , it is "theory of numbers" or "numbers theory"

yes , I meant that one (above). To me, it is nice for pure maths (to specify in functional analysis) but surely not for applied mathematics.

hahaha :) :) :) have you also felt yourself bored in mathematics. Horribly, I also see somewhere here alleging that maths was not Science. interesting. yes, this is the definition of metric. You may find more context and examples here (of course, if you are willing to do so) INTRODUCTORY FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS WITH APPLICATIONS Erwin Kreyszig University of Windsor. ISBN 0-471-50731-8

yes. No, this is not a correct opinion. Also, SI units are confirmed just between the existing humans. That does not mean that its scope is valid and right at everywehere. if this is an assertion extended to everything, then it is illogic. May I ask where did you take this illogic notion? the commencement is valid only for the universe itself. (But do not extend that commencement to everything. ) This is not clear to me. Could you explain what did you mean here? noooooo. :) not everything are based on observations and experimental outputs. no. ? mmm, may I also ask, why you narrow/limit yourself to this world ?

Eh, it is very simple. Consider, why is a line, in fact a circle in complex analysis? now,I am also sure that you did NOT understand what I said.

why do you have to? does the reality depicts the different conclusion than what you want, why *************************************** anyway, I think voting itself is NOT efficacious. the forum administration will just prevent themself from some various ideas. However, this does not mean that those ideas (which someone do not want even to hear ) were unavailable. Simply expelling someone's ideas. Yeah I remember at my BSc one physicist was saying that a professor in medicine had taken a nobel prize because the administration supposed that that was a novelty in Science. But when they were to be able to perfectly say that professors in medcine newly heard the theorem, that was surely not the new (i.e. not novel) in mathematics. I am afraid. I predict , because of such unrealistic approaches, English society will lose their everything in future.

I say that based on my personal opinion; there should be NO duality in reality. this means that; aluminnium would be either acid or alkali. but just one (not dual condition is available in reality) it is alive to me. (Again I do not interest to biology as there are very wide stupid biologists) but I clearly mean that in reality there is just one case : it can either be alive or dead. But just one. not dual mode is available. concrete is either stron or weak. But just one case is available. to me it is a wave. it can either be plant or animal. Also, unlike a stupid biologist, I will tend to say many things under this topic although I do not interest to this issue. see other expresions please. I think I have made sufficient explanations. to you, may I suppose that a hermaphroditism would be a better example to the topic (is it female or male?). if so, then I think you have not understood well what I said. Sorry.

yes, but do not forget the case that it could switch to broad and broader and reach to very wide subtopics. the case you write here based on perspective and extensional opinions can be wider. (my personal opinion is that there should not be "duality" Because even sensitive minimal existences, in fact, will show that there would be no duality However, not at everycase and every events sensitivities are measurable currently. In spite of this, I propose that there should be no "duality" ) For instance,(I have no offical expertise at this field but..) as far as I know, Biologists (biophysicists) state that cell membran potential is -82mV. This is a treshold. If a stimulus makes an effect over this point, than it switches to be action potential. But do not explain what happens (it might be very rare case) at treshold points. I tend to summarize all the cases alike with this case: an existence starts with prior to beginning,continues with treshold and passes to happening.

to me , the answer to such questions is both wide / broad and in fact simple. and even can be increased by some sort of thougths or perspective. -Also, in some languages some specific terms or usages are available for such cases.

to me, you are neither professional nor a knowledgeable one in making right selections and definitions. Ipresume, your decisions are problematic and you do not have sufficient knowledge in defining things so almost all of your decisions will be problematic. Anyway, this is my last comment under this thread. I won't write anything else here.

nope. do not just make random reading about COPE or reading it straight only. you speak like someone who does not know the bad side of peer reviewing. Be sure that I have many bad fact of it in my hand. Anyway. I do not want to spend my time to freely make my valuable evaluation. :) (I am planning to reject some forthcoming invitations (if any), but in my aside not really for the case that I believe I was unable to make a judgement. I just do not want to spend my time for a thing whicever will not bring me money in return. ) Say, what do I miss or what do I lose?? I tried to tell the comparison between all of the published materials and the submitted material. I did not say if the submitted material was new,then there would be a previous mention of that. check please I will also check. Although, I am not a good programmer, I disagree with great ration. The existing profile of AI may be not as good as to expect to carry out such an evaluation in any content. However, two things stand available in my opinion: 1) I do not think the same thing for future. 2) not every content cannot be evaluated.

Currently I do not closely interest to software contexts (AI or any related programming). However to me by successful programming and significant effort, it does nıt seem impossible really. like this: if the article/paper contains a new phenomenon or technique, then basically the programmer will define 1) what a phenomenon and / or a technique means. (first step) 2) the checker then will scan all the previous documents whether they contain a phenomennon/technique. (if , do , for loops may function helpful there) 3) if yes, then the program will compare the content of (that phenomenon / technique of) existing paper(s) with the submitted paper/article. else, the program will simply pass to another document. and so on until to the last document that was available. 4) then you will indirectly have defined what a new phenomenon / technique means. (i.e. if at the end of all loops the comparison brings no result , then you may reach to say: "this content includes new phenomenon or technique." I think it works succesfully in general say; why not?

And I do not know why you do want to know my personal understanding. Be sure, there are tons of scientists who just rely on "published materials (i.e. reference)" so, when there is no reference to support your claim,again then, you will find tons of academics who would just believe that you were just making an illogic allegation/assertion. so, as said , I do not understand why you do want to know my personal understanding. ah, simply forget it now. :) so, you believe or think I did not know what the generally accepted definition was. this does not make any excitement for someone like me. :) then, forget everything for now. But returning to the issue, while in our country even being defined as "scientist" would differ than somewhere else (maybe in U.S.) ,I do not define myself as a traditional scientist, I just wondered whether machine tools (ah yes, for instance AI) would be helpful in peer review system. Because my time is important and I do not want to spend it for a thing which will not bring me money back in return.

if you want to learn what "scientific laws" mean or check what I knew on it, then just googling will better help you. Check please. if you want to ask "how would they be" in future or "how would they change" according to my opinion, then well, I imply that the definition of "scientific law" would regrade/reduce to theorem or lower definition (e.g. proposition, yes this is even probable) in future.

from the point of my view, I think we have of course completely objective scientific contexts. However, again to me, even the existing version of "scientific laws" are not in fact so much strong and we currently do not have so much effective / useable "completely objective scientific contexts". I am almost sure that we would be able discuss or even maybe we might particularly be able to refute at least some of the existing scientific laws.

I have conducted more than several reviews in sci-journal for two years or more and wonder the answer for this question both to expect / ensure the faster process and the less subjective assessment?