As ridiculous as it may sound, it seems i might have indeed found an elementary proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. But i’m not a well-known person in the mathematical community, and i come from a country where there is not even a single number theory professor to discuss my work with.

I tried submitting the paper to arXiv, but i’m not yet an endorsed author, and it is very difficult to find endorsement, especially if you don’t have a lot of “contacts” like me.
On the other hand, i’ve learnt from researching on the web that one should never submit to places like viXra.

So i’m kindly requesting if there is anyone here who could assist me in getting my work published ? I’m willing to send this person my paper so that they can also review my argument on their own.

Someone might ask the following question, “Why wouldn’t our purported elementary proof, which is inductive in nature, work for FLT for finite fields ?”
The following would be our response:

Since the Fermat equation $a^{n}+b^{n}=c^{n}$ does indeed has non-zero integer solution $(a,b,c)$ in the finite field $mathbb{F}_n$ for every integer $ngeq 3$, it follows that our “inductive” argument wouldn’t have a
base case. That is, we wouldn’t have an n>2 upon which our induction” could be based.

I could have posted the proof here if it was allowed.

Your assistance would surely be invaluable.

I’m sure a lot of math is used for quantum-mechanics research. Is math useful to avoid making mistakes in research?

For example, according to this answer, it turns out to be true that it’s consistent that the laws of special relativity including energy and momentum conservation laws hold. If a different published result like that that’s useful if it’s true turns out to be false, could people who are good at math do the math to see which ones are legit and which ones are a mistake so that the correct results can actually be used for research without the incorrect ones also getting used by mistake?

Could some research be so hard that people doing research on that topic need to be really good at math and work in collaboration with each other?

Sometimes, people use previously published mathematical results to prove new results and use the axiom of choice to prove them. The axiom of determinacy contradicts the axiom of choice. I’m wondering if people are also publishing results that depend on the axiom of determinacy in the same way and only use them if they’ve either done the math to check that the result doesn’t depend on the axiom of choice or the published paper says the result doesn’t depend on the axiom of choice.

I am a second year PhD student. At the end of my first year, we (with my supervisor) have prepared a paper which he advised to submit to a leading journal. I was a little bit skeptical about the matter because I’ve prepared the paper for a conference and not as an article for a journal, and especially when the idea was not mature enough to be accepted in a journal.

Personally, I was planning to submit the paper to a conference, and then improve the old results and add new results and then submit to another conference, and when we develop a solid contribution, we combine all results and then try a leading journal. I knew at the same, that then downsides of my approach are:

  • Takes time (conferences take at least 2 to 3 months to notify, and I was planing to try 2 or 3 conferences to improve the results).
  • Expensive (registration fees, travel cost, etc.).
  • And probably I might not get the feedback that will improve our paper (it happened to me in my first/previous conference).

My supervisor’s approach is different, he said that top leading journals
give really good feedback and sometimes they give the exact problem in your contribution and recommend solutions. The idea for him is submit not mainly for acceptance, but to get feedback that we could to improve and then choose a suitable journal.

As you can see, we both want the same thing but each had a different method. Of course, I’ve followed his approach, and the results were this: I’ve dealt with 7 desk rejections with no detailed remarks. 5 of these were rejected because it’s out of scope, and 2 said that the results needs to be improved. Keep in mind, that “top leading journals” take a lot of time to give the first answer, so I’ve wasted 8 months just looking for journals and preparing templates.

Lucky, I listened a little bit to my guts and started working on some new improvements and suggested to my supervisor to add these improvements and try one last time. He accepted and after more than 1 month of working, we finally submitted the new version to another journal and now I just received an email that says the paper is currently under review :).

But I am curios about whether his approach is right or mine, what are the mistakes that I did during this whole process? Keep in mind I have no publications (*), I really love research and always try my best, but those 7 months were stressful, especially when I know 2nd years with 2 or more publications already.

(*) I did 1 conference because I did some work in my Master and my supervisor (same person) said it’s good we should try a conference. But My thesis discusses (a) slightly different problem (s), so I have no publications.

We’ve all heard of postpartum depression, though I’m not a woman so I have no idea what it’s really like.

I am wondering if there is any medical/psychological evidence to support similar (reported) feelings after the completion of a big research project.

This is my (I’m the sole author each time) fourth time sending a paper to a journal after spending countless hours working to finalize the draft.
This typically involves a frenzy at the end where I work 12 hours a day trying to perfect the paper. This is in addition to the the stress incurred while actually creating the research (in my case, mathematics) in the first place.

Each time I finish a paper, including my most recent, I have feelings of emptiness and anxiety. I’m not here for medical advice, I’d just like to know if anyone is aware of some scientific basis for these emotions.

I’m an American that has been accepted into Neuroscience Masters programs at both schools and am currently deciding which I will enroll in. I know choosing the right grad program has a lot to do with how the work done by the faculty at an institute matches with your interests, but the environment plays a role as well. Since I’m not from Germany, I’m interested in whether anyone here as attended these schools and if so, how do they feel about them? Is there a good school atmosphere there?

On a side note, how does the prestige/reputation of these schools compare against each other as well as other schools in Germany?

I just submitted an article in a special issue. This article is based on a talk given in a conference, and we received a discount. So after I submitted the article, the website told me to contact the editorial office about the discount. How shall I write the letter? It is the first time for me to do this kind of thing, please suggest some sample letters.

I also want to point it out that in the website of the special issue, it is clearly stated that all papers in the issue will be published free of charge. Does this mean that it is not necessary to contact the editorial office? If so, why is it that after the submission, I still got the suggestion to contact the office?

Thank you!

I am not prepared to give details in a public forum – I think I need to ask’s research higher studies community help, in particular senior faculty members, if any.

I would like to explore returning to the pursuit of a terminal degree sometime 2020++ in a field related to my accumulated research work and career credentials with publications and products. I have a major blemish in my overall academic record at my last institution based upon an off-campus incident several years ago which ended in a sentence. At the time of my projected return as a doctoral candidate, the faculty committee recommended suspension, and the admin decided on termination after it became clear I had failed to report it per student policy. Elsewhere on Stack Exch. I have already described the good that came out of that research, and that chapter of my life is now finished.

Can I ask the community if there is any practical chance of pursuing a doctoral program again? If so, When could I approach that, and how could I broach the subject to a new institution?

Thank you.