Footnotes:
Kalimuthu Sennimalai - Crackpot or Joker?
Kalimuthu Sennimalai is either a true crackpot or a joker intent on getting as much complete nonsense published in journals as possible. As well as claiming in PDF The Hindu Holistic solution for carbon removal and maintaining a good climate and environment that: “A non-stop chanting of the above mentioned Holy sounds/mantras will definitely remove carbon, create good climate condition and keep the TOTAL ENVIRONMENT free from all the natural threats…” and other similar material (see Google scholar for Kalimuthu Sennimalai), he has also published a paper in which he claims that he has eight different ways of proving Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. (Footnote: Kalimuthu Sennimalai, “Eight Different Proofs for Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN) 4333703 (2023).) It is worth having a quick look at it if only for the entertainment value, it is quite hilarious. His first such “proof ” is by “proving” Euclid’s fifth postulate (the parallel postulate); he claims to achieve this by “proving” that the angles of every triangle summate to the same value. He starts off with an image of a triangle divided into three triangles:
Figure: Triangle divided into three
Then he states that:
He then states that given that
(1)
(2)
(3)
He then goes through a series of manipulations of equations and arrives at his equation (7):
and from this, by the use of the standard quadratic formula for
But that equation (7) is not a true quadratic where the parameters of the equation are independent of the variable
which reduces to:
where everything cancels out, which means that the
And no, I didn’t bother reading Kalimuthu’s other 7 “proofs of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem” which appear to be all similar claims of proofs of Euclid’s parallel postulate. He is clearly the epitome either of a crackpot - or a joker.
For an analysis of another crackpot, see How to tell if someone is a crackpot, which looks at the claims of a John Gabriel.
Other Posts
Rationale: Every logical argument must be defined in some language, and every language has limitations. Attempting to construct a logical argument while ignoring how the limitations of language might affect that argument is a bizarre approach. The correct acknowledgment of the interactions of logic and language explains almost all of the paradoxes, and resolves almost all of the contradictions, conundrums, and contentious issues in modern philosophy and mathematics.
Site Mission
Please see the menu for numerous articles of interest. Please leave a comment or send an email if you are interested in the material on this site.
Interested in supporting this site?
You can help by sharing the site with others. You can also donate at where there are full details.