-1
$\begingroup$

I am wondering if it would be worthwhile to ask why a certain textbook and/or its authors (Dolotin and Morozov) are not well known.

From the description of the book:

This unique text presents the new domain of consistent non-linear counterparts for all basic objects and tools of linear algebra, and develops an adequate calculus for solving non-linear algebraic and differential equations.

Is it pseudo-mathematics?

This article by the authors is a concise introduction: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0609022

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Why do you want to know why the book is not well known? Does the book contain some ideas that are not common elsewhere, or something? There are many books that are not well known, not for any particular reason, so I fail to see your motivation. $\endgroup$ – Joonas Ilmavirta Mar 11 '15 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ @JoonasIlmavirta From the description of the book: "This unique text presents the new domain of consistent non-linear counterparts for all basic objects and tools of linear algebra, and develops an adequate calculus for solving non-linear algebraic and differential equations." -- surely, something like this, an algebra for non-linear equations that parallels the power of linear algebra would be very curious to all? So, that's why I wonder if its just pseudo-mathematics, and the claim of the book is simply false. $\endgroup$ – user89 Mar 11 '15 at 17:49
  • $\begingroup$ Responding to the previous comment: outlandish claims don't always attract interest from people who have enough on their plates to deal with $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Mar 11 '15 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi Is it safe for me to ignore this text too then? I guess that's what I want to understand. $\endgroup$ – user89 Mar 11 '15 at 17:51
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If the book claims to give tools for nonlinear equations that are just as strong as the usual ones for linear equations, it is certainly too good to be true. It may contain some clever methods, but the description claims too much, which makes me lose interest. $\endgroup$ – Joonas Ilmavirta Mar 11 '15 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ @JoonasIlmavirta Thanks! That's exactly what I needed to understand. $\endgroup$ – user89 Mar 11 '15 at 17:58
  • $\begingroup$ I wrote my thoughts into an answer to address similar questions in the future. $\endgroup$ – Joonas Ilmavirta Mar 11 '15 at 18:14
7
$\begingroup$

Questions like why is something or someone not well known are not well posed mathematical questions, and are therefore likely to be closed as primarily opinion-based. If you can modify such a question to something like "Why is this appealing method not useful?", it might be more welcome; just make sure that the question is actually a question, not an start of a discussion and it's probably fine. These pages at our help pages give a good idea of what kinds of questions work here.

There are many textbooks out there, and not all of them are well known. Therefore I would find it more reasonable to ask why some book is well known, but such questions also have the restrictions mentioned above.

I don't know the book you were planning to ask about, but it seems to claim too much. The description makes the book sound like a full treatment of nonlinear algebra, which is certainly not possible. It may be useful to some and contain clever ideas, but the description you cite claims too much. A book need not be wonderful even if its cover claims so – reliable evidence for greatness can only be something external to the book. (And this applies to all books, not just mathematical ones.)

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .