Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории

Фраза из второй рецензии “Is that not done in analysis all the time?” показывает, что рецензент даже не понимает о чем идет речь. Но первый рецензент, вроде бы, понимает, что проблема фундаментальная. В таком случае, казалось бы, он должен просто сказать, являются ли результаты новыми и правильными. Но он конкретно результаты не рассматривает, а говорит, что статья больше подходит для философского журнала.

Я послал вопрос секретарю журнала Mr Zhang:

Thank you for your email informing about the editorial decision. The referee reports seem to be strange for the following reasons. The referees say that my results are not for a math journal but they do not judge a paper as a math paper. My paper contains new mathematical statements and in my understanding the main goal of the reports is to say whether the proofs are correct and new. However, the reports say nothing specific about this. The referees discuss philosophy, advise me to consider constructive math, finitism etc. but nothing specific is said about my results and one of the referees even says a strange phrase that “Is that not done in analysis all the time?”. As noted in the paper, philosophy is discussed only for illustration while the results are mathematical and do not depend on philosophy.

Let me also note that the special issue is titled «Mathematical Physics II» and I prove that standard quantum theory is a degenerated special case of FQT. This is a fully new result but the referees even do not mention this result. From the reports it is not clear to me whether the referees treat their recommendation as final or they accept that the author has a right to appeal. If I have a chance to appeal, I could try to submit a revised version. Is this acceptable? But to be honest I am puzzled because the reports say nothing specific on whether my results are correct or not. I can include the discussion of constructive math, finitism etc., but the main problem is whether the referees agree that my results are correct and new. Unfortunately, I could not find a clear explanation of this point. I would be grateful for your explanation.

Редактор этого special issue “Mathematical Physics II” – Dr. Enrico De Micheli. Mr Zhang ответил так:

The final decision was made by our academic editor according to his opinion along with the collected reports during the peer review. Hope your gentle understanding. We would like to thank you for having considered Mathematics and wish you every success in the future.

Т.е., редактор принял окончательное решение даже не дав автору права на appeal.