# Scientists and other Scholars who publish work considered "crank" by most peers

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [April 14, 2016, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174 "2016-04-14T12:13:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barath\_s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@barath\_s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barath_s)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/121 "2016-04-26T15:57:28Z")

</div>

> [@davidm](#):
>
> I read it. It’s wrong. He divides by zero on page 2.
> 
> 😛

From the article: only four mathematicians have read the entire proof. All of them worked with him in Japan.

\> one must look at whole numbers in a different light—leaving addition aside and seeing the multiplication structure as something malleable and deformable. Standard multiplication would then be just one particular case of a family of structures, just as a circle is a special case of an ellipse

So division by zero isn’t proof the theory is wrong. Welcome to the club.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/122 "2016-04-26T16:02:25Z")

</div>

> [@barath\_s](#):
>
> From the article: only four mathematicians have read the entire proof. All of them worked with him in Japan.
> 
> \> one must look at whole numbers in a different light—leaving addition aside and seeing the multiplication structure as something malleable and deformable. Standard multiplication would then be just one particular case of a family of structures, just as a circle is a special case of an ellipse
> 
> So division by zero isn’t proof the theory is wrong. Welcome to the club.

You do realize that I was joking?

The problem is that he uses Ultra-Mochizuki-Division to divide by a 12 dimensional zero matrix.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174.md?page=6)