(return to above) (See the follow-up with responses by two other mathematicians)
Date:
Mon, 03 Oct 2016
To:
"Redactie NAW"
From:
Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus
Subject: RE: Mogelijke bijdrage: "An algebraic
approach to the derivative"
Dear Mr. XYZ,
I have read the
referee report. My
rejoinder:
(1) Where the referee claims that the discussion about
division is confused with algorithmic aspects, my exposition however holds that
the traditional approach is confused, and that there is more clarity in
distinguishing traditional and algebraic approaches. Thus, the referee
misrepresents my argument. The example taken from a ring of polynomials is
irrelevant as I clearly refer to the Reals, which is a Field, where it matters
whether the denominator is zero or not. This misrepresentation is disguisting.
(2) The question of the
derivative of Sin[x] is discussed in "Conquest
of the Plane", one of the references, and nicely solved in the new manner.
The approach uses logic and no limits. It should have been simple to check that.
The referee could have asked me but I received no such question. It is rather
insulting that it is suggested that I would not have thought about Sin[x].
(3) On Abs[x], my training at
Groningen in 1974 was that there is a left derivative and a right derivative,
and that these differ, whence the derivative at 0 is undefined. The new approach
suggests Sgn[x]. It is curious that the referee claims that it already is
Sgn[x]. "Differentiable" and "having a derivative" are synonimous. I will not
use SageMath as an authority but these definitions are standard. The problem
that the referee sees is another error on his or her part.
https://www.sagemath.org/calctut/differentiability.html
I hope that you agree that my
rejoinder is to the point. A suggestion is to ask the referee for a reply.
PM 1. I am actually amazed that you accepted this
referee report. My impression is that you did not read the paper and fully
relied on the false information that the referee provided. Is this true ? Let me
ask you whether the editors actually read the paper, to be able to judge on the
referee report.
PM 2. The quality of refereeing is so abysmal that I
don't think that the referee will apologize. Every mathematician should be able
to see that this is a fine paper. You better publish and see how the reactions
will be. But let me await your response.
Kind regards,
Thomas Cool / Thomas
Colignatus
Econometrician and teacher of mathematics
At
2016-10-03 Redactie NAW wrote:
Beste meneer Cool,
Ik heb inmiddels antwoord van
de redactie. De redactie heeft uw stuk in
overweging genomen en voorgelegd aan een referent. Van
de referent ontving
de
redactie bijgaand rapport. De redactie is het eens met het oordeel van de
referent dat het stuk niet geplaatst kan worden in het
NAW.
Het spijt me u te moeten teleurstellen.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Firstname XYZ
Eindredacteur NAW
> -----Oorspronkelijk
bericht-----
> Van:
Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus
> Verzonden: maandag 15 augustus 2016 15:39
> Aan: redactie [at] nieuwarchief.nl
> Onderwerp: Mogelijke bijdrage: "An algebraic
approach to the derivative"
>
> Geachte redactie,
>
> Gaarne bied ik bijgaand artikel aan ter publicatie
in NAW.
>
> Gangbaar werk ik in Word. Ik
heb uw aanlevercondities gezien. Bij
acceptatie
> kan ik kijken of ik het in latex kan omzetten.
>
> Mijn hoop is dat het bij publicatie meteen online
komt, en niet een jaar
hoeft te
> wachten.
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus
> Econometrist (Groningen 1982) en leraar wiskunde
(Leiden 2008)
Scheveningen