Academic topics and reviews

topic 1.  Why on earth are some Italian academics laughed at and ridiculed by the scientific community?

There is this perception, that the Italian university is based on clientelism and that several Italian professors (especially the "full" professors) are nothing else than people who reached their position nurturing a network of relationships, even though they should not have been allowed to even serve as doormen.

In other words, a form of intellectual dishonesty which permeates the whole system and has also connection in the legal system. Clearly, one might disagree with this view, however, sometimes objective evidence can’t be disproved.

Using the term in a broader meaning, people like Prof. Perotti or Prof. Paris , and many others (including the media), talk about “university mafia”. Clearly this has (most often) nothing to do with the corresponding crime organization. However, there are some analogies which justify the common use of the term even in the media, being the use of physical violence replaced with other form of, more subtle, but not less effective, moral violence. Examples of that include exclusion from the system, impossibility to have justice through the ordinary means of justice (which are also connected with the academic and political system ), persecution, through a creative use of the disciplinary processes and other vexatory instruments reachable through personal connections.

There is a form of “Italian ingenuity” in this behavior. Clearly not the same kind of ingenuity that can attributed  to Newton, Tesla, or Chopin. It’s  more like the way how mediocrity finds its way in the world. In fact, the mediocre has no other choice to emerge that getting organized with others like him for reciprocal support, creating a self referencing system, from which all the participants draw, at the right time, a benefit. It’s often an highly unjust benefit, because it is obtained defrauding (and often persecuting) people of clear superior value and dedication, just due to the system of relationships.

topic 2.  What's the root of problems in the Italian academic system

The fact that being a full professor, for instance, has a legal value and is achieved through a "public" competition where the commission is formed by other professors.
This creates a real feudal system, where the position is exchanged within a network of relationships and favors, and has, often, nothing to do with scientific contributions.
The result of most "competitions" are in fact well known before they are held, and the proceeding becomes an exercise in "public dishonesty". Although this might sound as illegal, the justice system does not prosecute it, due to the relationships between university, politics and justice. Politics uses this intellectually dishonest system, although in public speeches, clearly, the corruption is condemned. 

See for instance these cases or many others here.

Paper Reviews

PROF. ALFREDO RIZZI, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”

STATISTICA, anno LXIV, n. 2, 2004
“TEST DI PRIMALITÀ DETERMINISTICI E PROBABILISTICI”  [ Deterministic and Probabilistic Primality Tests ]  -  by Alfredo Rizzi

Paper: http://rivista-statistica.cib.unibo.it/article/view/1291/697

Let’s examine this paper published in the Italian journal "Statistics" ("Statistica"). This is the same journal where well know Italian geniuses, such as Prof. Paola Monari and  Prof. Mary Fraire have published their breakthroughs, for which the international scientific community will never be thankful enough (and which will also be reviewed in detail).

Someone inserted his name in this (Italian) list of famous mathematicians”: http://felix.unife.it/Root/d-Mathematics/d-The-mathematician/t-Mathematicians-A-Z , where also Riemann, Euler and Gauss are listed.

Therefore, we could not be more excited to learn from this "famous mathematician", who has published this masterpiece on such a prestigious international scientific journal (you may imagine how tough must be the refereeing process of this top journal, let’s go through the various statements appearing in this paper. 

The paper starts up with some triviality, scattering around names of actual mathematical geniuses, like Euler or Gauss, to convey the notion that the author has read something about the history of mathematics..

“Le questioni riguardanti i numeri primi hanno interessato molti studiosi sin dagli albori della matematica. Basti ricordare nell’antichità Euclide e negli ultimo quattrocento anni Fermat, Eulero, Legendre, Gauss, Hilbert. Gauss, nel 1801, nelle Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, affermava che il problema di distinguere i numeri primi da quelli composti e della fattorizzazione di questi ultimo è uno dei più importanti ed utili in aritmetica”

Then, suddenly, among these geniuses, a quotation emerges from the brother of the (ex) Italian Prime Minister (who happened to be a professor of mathematics).

“Giovanni Prodi, ad una domanda postagli sui risultati che più lo avevano colpito, tra quelli conseguiti in matematica negli ultimi decenni ha risposto: “I teoremi probabilistici di primalità.”

Now, one trait of this kind of “ingenuity”, we clearly need to learn is: always quote the right persons. [We might recall that Prof. Alfredo Rizzi was nominated by the ministry in the Commission for retirement funds (Commissario nella Commissione di Vigilanza sui Fondi Pensione), a well remunerated appointment. ] This kind of quotations are good, because, for instance, you can take a reprint of your paper and send it to the personality, with some dedication.

We all have to learn from this. Clearly, there is no point to be grateful to right great scientists in the field of prime numbers, those who have literally given their entire lives to pure research and struggled to be precise and rigorous in every single word they wrote (after all, that's what mathematics is all about).

The interesting part is when the author attempts to report the most basic results about prime numbers, such as their infinitude.

Sia P l’insieme dei numeri primi P = [1,2,3,5,7,11,13,...,n,....] ove n ha solo i divisori banali 1 ed n.

So according to the author 1 is a prime number. At this point, if you were a student at high school being examined, your professor would immediately send you away in shame.

But no. Even though we don't know any number theorists who think 1 is a prime, this must clearly be a sign of ingenuity and not a misprint, as the thing is even object of further “examples” which enlighten the unaware reader:

“Sia  Z_n l’insieme degli interi primi con n. Ad esempio Z₃ =[1,2], … “

Here there is an attempt to evocate the Euler’s Totient function, but the author is totally missing to define the concept of coprime, mixing up primes and coprimes to n as if they were the same thing (in fact, 1 is coprime to itself).

At this point we are just at page 3 of 13. And I think I refuse to proceed any further, but you may continue and let me know. I think we got the idea.

While I sadly close the article, cannot help seeing this sentence about the AKS primality test:

 “Teorema 11. La complessità asintotica dell’algoritmo è: O^{log n} ”

So, according to the great scientist and "famous" mathematician Prof. Alfredo Rizzi, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, the AKS algorithm has complexity O^{log n} (note it's "O" to the power of log n).

At this point we are speechless.

“Il risultato di M. Agrawal, N. Kayal e N. Safena, come si…”

“Adlemane, Pomerance e Rumely hanno fornito “

Poor Prof Adleman, poor Prof. Saxena !

The paper has also a summary where one can read:

“di teoria di teoria dei numeri con riferimento alle ricerche di Eulero, Fermat, Legendre, Rieman e di altri studiosi. Esistono molte espressioni che forniscono insiemi di infiniti…”

I guess that Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann will be turning in his grave (btw, Riemann's grave site no longer exists).

In the abstract (http://rivista-statistica.cib.unibo.it/article/view/1291) we can read again:

“He remembers the very important researches of Eulero, Fermat, Legen-re, Rieman and others scholarships.”

Just misprints? Of course. But where is the contribution of this paper if, not having anything original in it, it doesn't even represent at least an accurate review ?

This work - which is actually one of the best by this Author - was good enough to be published in the (prestigious) scientific journal “Statistica”.

And the (proud) author of this work, Prof. Alfredo Rizzi, is a full professor at the University of Rome (**)

Our Rating to the paper (0-10)