My Cape Town challenge to prove 1+1 = 2 in real numbers and my related JNU prize of Rs 10 lakhs is well known, and were reiterated in my VIF talk.
In response to this, Prasad gave two inexcusable public answers to a reporter from thePrint.
First, he said, throughout the world, 1+1 = 2 is proved using Peano’s axioms.🤣🤣 Prasad is so INCOMPETENT a mathematician that he does not know that there is no uniform set of axioms for the number 1. Specifically, Peano’s axioms do NOT apply to axiomatic real numbers.
Prasad was responding to my VIF talk which clearly explains the context of real numbers (as above) which was presumably also communicated to him by the reporter @MohanaBasu, and which context he should anyway have seen before making such foolish public pronouncements. By using the wrong set of axioms this incompetent mathematician FAILED my public challenge regarding 1+1=2. He should be sacked from his government position, for such extreme incompetence and irresponsibility.
Secondly, in my VIF talk I pointed out that ganita accepts empirical proof while axiomatic mathematics prohibits the empirical in proof.
In response, Prasad LIED that the empirical is NOT prohibited in mathematics except at an advanced level. Real numbers are taught in the first chapter of the class IX math text which is surely not an advanced level even if Prasad says so (since class IX math is compulsory for all). So, can 1+1 = 2 in real numbers be proved using the KG-level empirical method of one apple and one apple making two apples?😃 No, Mr Prasad better resign from your job!
Too incompetent even to spot the internal contradiction, Prasad? If the empirical is permitted, why are ANY AXIOMS (even Peano’s axioms) needed for an elementary thing like 1+1 = 2? Just do it empirically like in KG!
And what about the theorems of geometry proved in chapter 5 of the same class IX text? If the empirical is permitted why is an axiomatic proof given for these theorems? Is SAS (side-angle-side) a postulate (=axiom) as the book states? And why is an axiom needed when SAS can easily be empirically proved as a theorem as was done in all books (including the “Euclid” book) until 1899?
Better resign Prasad if you are so shaky even of your class IX math.
But it is not only extreme incompetence. To save his job Prasad further lies that rejecting axiomatic math would put “us” back. It would only put him back! It would take the nation a great leap forward, because California has canceled the calculus to advance technology because of the difficulty with real numbers which are NOT needed for calculus taught according to my ganita course.
It would put Prasad back personally, for his research work would all be recognized as metaphysical junk. But he does not seem to mind if the nation loses, so long as he gains personally.
Willing to issue a public apology and retraction, Mr Prasad?
People at large should know that formal mathematicians will mislead them to defend their personal interests.
PS. Of course, Prasad had another personal axe to grind to promote his friend P. P. Divakaran whom I have rightly accused of academic misconduct.
