Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории

Его ответы были такими:

Dear Dr. Lev:

Let me start by asking you to communicate with the magazine in English: I am the only member of the editorial board who speaks Russian, and we conduct all the magazine-related business in English. Thank you for your understanding.

Concerning your article and the editors" decision, let me assure you that the referee is a highly qualified mathematician who had studied your article in detail. Obviously, he will remain anonymous to you, but let me say that, as an author, I'd be very happy to have a reviewer of this caliber and quality. Let me be clear: we firmly stand by his recommendation to reject the article.

Let us look at your arguments.

You claim that "любое явление, которое объясняет классическая математика, в принципе может быть объяснено с любой точностью в конечной математике, если p очень большое. Но есть и явления, которые могут быть объяснены только если p конечное, а не бесконечное." (every phenomenon explained by classical mathematics, in principle, can be explained with arbitrary precision in finite mathematics, if p is very large. But there also exist phenomena that can be explained only if p is finite, and not infinite).

What does this statement mean? Perhaps your book provides enough detail, but it is not at all clear from your article. You illustrate it by examples, claiming that arithmetical identities such as 10+20=30 are ambiguous, whereas 10+20=30 (mod 40) or 10+20=5 (mod 25) are not. These examples are unconvincing, and they do not clarify the meaning of the general statement above. More generally, you describe the simple relations between the rings Z/Zp and Z as an argument toward this general statement; we find this unconvincing as well.

You say that the purpose of your article was to popularize your book. Unfortunately, this goal was not achieved: it is not clear from your article whether the approach that you promote is capable of obtaining new results or of consistently explaining known results in a new way. Perhaps one needs to read your book to make sense of your theory and to appreciate it, but your article comes short of being compelling.

The final paragraph of your article (in bold) is its main message. In our opinion, to convince the reader of the truth of this credo, and even to make precise sense of it, would need much more elaboration than presented in your article.

Sincerely yours,

Sergei Tabachnikov

The Mathematical Intelligencer

Professor of Mathematics, Penn State

И затем он послал второй ответ: