Letters to the Editor

Review of Shadows of Reality

Thanks for so detailed a review ofmy book, Shadows of Reality [April2007 issue]. But there are misrep-resentation of arguments, mine andothers.

Phillips says that I go too far withthe influence of Jouffret on Picassoand says that even Henderson is morecautious. Her book on the subject wasfrom her Ph.D. thesis in 1979, when asa young graduate student she had nochoice but to offer a (single) caveat inher long book. In lectures and manysubsequent writings, Henderson isfar more forceful. To imply that sheis wishy-washy on the proposition isto misrepresent her life’s work. It istrue that I have taken her argumentfurther by giving other, more detailedexamples from the Jouffret. Do I offerno proof, as Phillips contends? I showthat Picasso had the means, motive,and opportunity. Also true, I lookedfor and could not find the letter inwhich Picasso says he did copy fromthe Jouffret, but written confessionsare not the only form of proof. I invitereaders to look at the comparisonsand decide for themselves.

Phillips likewise misrepresentsMinkowski in his reading of Minkows-ki that I quote. Minkowski says(rearranging his words a bit) thatto project from spacetime to threedimensions “cast[s] only a very com-plicated projection”. But we can nottake that statement to mean thatMinkowski is rejecting “projection”.I argue that Minkowski states thatthese complications are exactly thedistortions of special relativity. It isnot fair to change Minkowski’s mean-ing just to hammer me; Minkowskidid not intend to dismiss projectionhere.

I have programmed both of the deBruijn methods for generating fool-proof quasicrystals, as well as writtenprograms for assembling quasicrystalblocks. It took almost a year out ofmy life; it is not easy for an artist tolearn enough linear algebra to do this.

Although I did not give the compli-cated algorithms, in the text and mydiagrams I clearly state that one doesnot project all the hypercubic cellsto the plane (or space) of projection,but that there is a gate or test thateach vertex must pass before they areprojected. In one, but only one, of thetwo de Bruijn algorithms it is possibleto call this test a “strip” or a “slice”,or refer to a “cut and project method”.But to point to this test slice and saythat my exposition if fundamentallyflawed is again to misrepresent whatde Bruijn has done. He has seen thatquasicrystals are projections of reg-ular higher-dimensional cubic cells.Quasicrystals are quixotic becauseof the irrational angle at which thisprojection occurs. It is an almostunimaginable feat of mathematicalvisualization from de Bruijn; don’ttake this away from him because youare “disappointed” in me.

It is the last chapter that has madesome mathematicians so mad. In thischapter I reject slices in favor ofprojections as a model for spacetimephysics. Even the title of my book saysas much. I agree that to be furiousat squares while being in love withtriangles, does make one sound like anut. On the other hand, to accuratelyreport on what physicists say and dois responsible journalism, and if theysay that space + time is best modeledas a projection of spacetime, thenthat is responsible journalism. Did Iunfairly characterize their work? Ordo I bring up something that oth-ers have missed! That is the propersubject of criticism.

—Tony RobbinNew York City

TonyRobbin@worldnet.att.net

(Received April 20, 2007)

Referees

In his Opinion on “Should journalscompensate referees?” (Notices 54(2007), no. 5, p. 589) Michael Friedseems to answer that question by Yes.

Will then referees be responsible forthe errors in papers? Fried’s opinionseems to be that they are responsiblealready now, without payment: “…it ismy experience that over 50% of papers(yes, tough topics, but …) have veryserious …errors. This reflects poorlyon referees. Why referees and notauthors?” I don’t see a clear answerto that question in what follows there.I was always told and was convincedwhen actively editing journals that theauthors not the referees are ultimate-ly responsible for errors. (Of coursethe referee should do her/his best tonotice them.) This seems to be sup-ported by the following stanza in R. P.Boas’s humorous but seriously meant(“Let me make it clear to you/This iswhat we’ll never do”) Retroactive Edi-torial Policy (Amer. Math. Monthly 89(1982), p. 32; the other three stanzasare also worth reading): “We oftennote that authors, even those whosework is strong, They sometimes gotoo far and say a thing or two that’swrong. You needn’t worry very muchabout a stray mistake: If you can foolthe referee, what difference does itmake? But not in my journal.”

One more short note about dead-lines for referees. There is almostnothing so annoying for (active)editors and editorial staff than areferee from whom, notwithstandingreminders, one does not hear formonths and months, while the au-thors keep asking “What happenedto my paper?” There may also be aslight chance of priority problems:while priority can be established fromsubmission dates, people tend toquote where they first saw the re-sult. Editors-in-chiefs and managingeditors are usually patient when thereferee informs them approximatelyhow much more time they need butnot if they get only silence.

Also referees should say (write) assoon as possible if they can not orwould not referee the paper (e.g., forlack of time and certainly if it is “farfrom topics in which the prospectivereferee publishes papers”). Judging

1118 Notices of the AMS Volume 54, Number 9

Letters to the Editor

from the reports we finally got, manyeditors (including me) got the impres-sion that many referees (apparentlynot Fried and his # 1 correspondent)were tardy not because they did a thor-ough job but because they delayed solong starting it.

—János AczélUniversity of Waterloo, Emeritusjdaczel@math.uwaterloo.ca

(Received May 4, 2007)

Reply to Aczel

Aczel raises an issue of receivedwisdom: That it’s not the referee’s re-sponsibility to vouch for the accuracyof an author’s paper. He suggests Ididn’t make a case for this responsi-bility though I did say at least 50%of the papers I referee have seriouserrors.

Finding referees for new, not-yet-assimilated tools is one toughproblem. It requires interdisciplinaryrefereeing expertise and editors whofollow the analysis. Or else, it is rifefor abuse.

An example from my early expe-rience will help me address Aczel’sconcerns.

My first Annals paper solved a prob-lem posed by Ax and Kochen. Prior tomy result, someone well-connectedto the area “proved” there could beno such theorem as mine.

My paper had five referees. Fourcalled my office at Stony Brook, withthe same technical questions. A fifthrevealed himself years later. I didget a fair hearing from a rare faireditor—Armand Borel—to whom Ilobbied for my paper during a twoyear postdoctoral at IAS.

My experience: Editors dominatein this process over referees.

Aczel also complains about tardyreferees.

Correspondent # 5 in my articleasked, “Why do mathematicians ref-eree without compensation?” Hewondered, among the possibilitiesif it was “a fair trade for having theirpapers refereed?”

In my experience as an author,you may not even get that. Jus-tification for this, responses fromothers who wrote me directly,

and an expansion on Aczel’s top-ic are on my website math.uci.edu/~mfried/proplist-ams.html, item# 4.

Refereeing is a hard task, and toofew do it well. I suggest, if therewere incentives, more mathemati-cians would feel it worth developingthe high skills that go with quick,quality refereeing.

—Michael FriedUniversity of California, Irvine

MFri4@aol.com

(Received July 2, 2007)

Journal Pricing

I was pleased to read the recent ar-ticle “Jumping Ship: Topology BoardResigns” [May 2007 issue] in the AMSNotices, particularly the coverage ofour launch of the LMS-owned Journalof Topology with a detailed accountof recent history. The London Math-ematical Society is delighted to belaunching this new journal in a veryimportant and exciting area of mathe-matics. We are very fortunate to havean excellent and world-renowned edi-torial board and the support of ourpublishers, Oxford University Press,in this venture. The signs are alreadyencouraging, with substantial interestfrom all parts of the world.

I note your comments on the pric-ing of the new journal. The Societyhas worked hard to keep the price low.But in order to maintain its activitiesin support of mathematics nationallyand internationally we must operatein a businesslike way, and it is essen-tial that we work to a model for thenew journal that at least breaks evenin a reasonable period and does notdisadvantage the Society financiallyin the long term.

The Society fully recognises the im-portance of the dissemination ofmathematical knowledge and thethreats of rising prices of journalsand falling library budgets. In pur-suing its objectives of increasing itssupport for mathematical activities,the Council of the Society will contin-ue to seek to expand its activities inpublishing but its policy is that theprices of its journals should not risein real terms (against inflation) except

in as far as there is added content orvalue.

The economics of learned soci-eties and journal publishing workrather differently in Europe from inthe USA—more than can be coveredin this letter but perhaps worthy offurther debate in your pages.

—Kenneth FalconerUniversity of St. Andrewskjf@st-andrews.ac.uk

(Received June 20, 2007)

Librarians like Online Notices

I applaud Notices’ move to com-plete online issues, mentioned inthe June/July “Letter from the Editor”.We librarians like online versions thatcontain everything found in the paperversions…and more, of course.

In the past, I have had difficultieswith pictures missing from the onlineversion of articles, and I hope that nolonger happens now.

—Martha Tucker, LibrarianUniversity of Washington

mtucker@u.washington.edu

(Received June 26, 2007)

AK-47 Memories

I read the “Letter from the Editor” inthe June/July 2007 Notices of the AMSwith great interest.

In Fall 1968, I was drafted duringmy first term in graduate school, soin January 1969 when Andy Magid be-gan collecting the Notices, my parentswere forwarding mine to me at FortDix, New Jersey, where I had beensent for basic training.

If I had had any idea that theNotices were capable of stopping anAK-47 round, you can be sure I wouldhave started saving them, too. I cer-tainly would have brought old issueswith me to Vietnam, where I served asan infantryman near the Cambodianborder from June 1969 to June 1970.

My mathematical background paidoff in Vietnam. I was trained as a rifle-man, but when I got to my company inthe field, I was put in the (somewhat)safer mortar platoon to do the vectoraddition for firing and adjusting thefire of the 81mm mortar. For 37 years

October 2007 Notices of the AMS 1119

Letters to the Editor

I’ve felt this change of assignmentmay very well have saved my life.

Fortunately, I never stopped, oreven slowed down, an AK-47 round. Ireturned to graduate school in 1971,and came to Georgia Tech in 1976.

—Fred AndrewGeorgia Institute of Technology

andrew@math.gatech.edu

(Received June 27, 2007)

Paper Notices Will Be ReadMore

While reading the editorial in the No-tices of the AMS (June/July, 2007), Ihad the following thoughts. I feel theNotices would not be read as much ifwe all had to download it.

Individuals are innately lazy. Ihave a colleague who subscribes tothe Notices, but is too lazy to openthe wrapper; his issues are stacked inpristine condition with the cellophanestill intact to keep the dust out. Willsuch individuals find downloadingless of an effort?

Even if every reader downloadedthe issue it would not be cost effectivein time and paper. Who downloadson two sides? Just as those who usedigital cameras say they will get thepictures to you immediately, eitherthey never arrive or they arrive muchlater than those developed from film.

Perhaps the anticipation of a papercopy each month in the mail is best;it arrives bound and easy to handle.All that is required is to slit open thecellophane. Then the Notices can beread in the office, at home, or on thebus. Be bold: be conservative.

—Agnes M. HerzbergQueen’s University

herzberg@post.queensu.ca

(Received July 11, 2007)

1120 Notices of the AMS Volume 54, Number 9