I'll wait at most one week from now.

What is not clear?

I got replies to my questions: "soon", "shortly"... The project with the problems is no longer visible on the anr.fr site. Something seems to happen in the background, but I receive no information.

I was respectful with the ANR, give them the fair chance to right a wrong. It's only polite to react in return. Do you think that I'm wrong? Tell, don't hide it, is beyond you, that's what I think, otherwise I could have skipped entirely this step.

DM me for the correspondence which proves this, although I would rather hope that ANR takes the steps to self regulate in this matter.

https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2022/12/03/problems-with-the-anr-bigben-project/

Hah "SBEN is BEN" is a SAT solver. Let me rephrase: is the mother of all SAT solvers.

Because the net is not subtle, let me rephrase again: "SBEN in BEN" is oil snake :)

More than 9 weeks for the Agence Nationale de la Recherche to ponder over what to do: encourage appropriation of Open Science or react against a dumb old boys Sorbonne-Lille project...

For me is a matter of respect: for Open Science and mathematics. Just have ⚽️⚽️ as expected, ANR.

For the next year: matematica foris.

Randomness is a theory of the rest of the world. Fortuna is a function which converts the outside (foris) into a number.

But what "number" means in this context?

This year 2022 was very complicated for me, after the 2021 when I paid for the excesses from the last 12 years.

However my long term projects came together at last. In my mind and I hope that, soon, in yours too.

At the end of 2021 I mentioned the miquelian way, complex projective geometry and, here or there, numbers. They are more like Church numbers than the numbers numbers, but they are the numbers I mean to talk about.

From time to time I receive requests from philpapers dot org, about my Computing with space article. They say it will be hard to find, because it is not published. But it is in arXiv. Is true though that people read either the first part or the second, but not both.

Here is it in philpapers
https://philpapers.org/rec/BULCWS-2

You'll find it in arXiv as well :))

14 weeks and the ANR ie the french Agence Nationale de la Recherche still has not released the conclusions about the obvious case of some french researchers scientific misconduct in the ANR BIGBEN project (let's leave the unethical behaviour, borderline racist, in the shadow of shameful, just look at the scientific facts).

Happy to receive an answer from ANR (french Agence Nationale de la Recherche) today, although somewhat vague. It is a matter of Open Science. I know that:
(a) is their money and decision
(b) they don't have any obligation towards me (and of course I have none towards them),

But they are fellow researchers, which I respect and not generalize a bad behaviour to the whole french class.

It turned out that some lies circulated, hope to quickly see that fixed.

The most important questions are, still:

- is it ok to appropriate my Open Science work by a project leader, just by name changes? BIGBEN means "bipotentiels generalises pour le Brezis-Ekeland-Nayroles principle". Or there are no generalized bipotentials and moreover it was me, not De Saxce, who made the discovery that bipotentials (usual ones) are relevant in the dynamics as well.

- is it ok to dumb down a valuable idea, the principle of information content of the deviation from hamiltonian evolution (mine), to a minimization of a cost principle like the BEN? I argue that not. Moreover ANR already funded such a project

https://anr.fr/Project-ANR-16-CE92-0026

which project was a resubmission without my knowledge of an european project (and dumbed down). It didn't produce anything of real value, as I expected, because one should import ideas from hamiltonian and stochastic mechanics, new ideas, not old ideas... That is why I was very skeptical when contacted by Kondo (Sorbonne) about this new project, and I asked for clear conditions of participation from the project leader De Saxce.

- is it ok to be lied about the ANR possibilities of funding when I am not french? Or they think is natural that a non french like me should work for free for them? On my own ideas no more no less...

But the most important is: on purpose, because I believe in Open Science, I put my articles on arXiv. Is is ok for ANR to fund research based on those articles by a french project leader?

Say it clearly, please.

We know is not ok, I am not unreasonable, just pissed to be treated badly by some bad apples.

From the Scholarly Kitchen (not one of my favourite sources) this is a link to remember for future argumentation
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/01/05/github-is-sued-and-we-may-learn-something-about-creative-commons-licensing/

Found out via
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34274326

Now the french Agence Nationale de la Recherche answers clearly to my questions concerning the awarded ANR BIGBEN project, with pearls like:

"Indeed, the fact that you have made your work and results freely available should have been precisely with the aim of making them accessible to the community so that it can appropriate them and then use them to move forward."

[from correspondence with the ANR prior to their official (sketchy) answer]

"Probability is Counting in a finite sample space, whose size depends on symbolic n. Then at the end, one can get the "continuous" limit, by taking a formal limit, essentially, replacing 1/n by 0. For example, here is a one-line Maple proof of the De-Moivre (local, i.e. stronger version) Central Limit Theorem (for a fair coin)
simplify(asympt(binomial((2*n,n+x*sqrt(n/2)))/4^n,n,1));  ,
getting
e-x2/2/(n Pi)1/2 + O(1/n1/2)   .
So the 11th great idea about Chance is to use "symbol-crunching", and keep n symbolic, and take formal limits. " Doron Zeilberger, Opinion 165

https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion165.html

Note to self: Gauss GRS

Note to self: SymP convex analysis for HI

Just imagine the opportunity. You can get 500k euros from a national research agency (french ANR) by copying from an old arXiv "preprint" of mine. What is there more, for you?

Only half joking. If you are dumb enough to not give attribution, then most likely you are not good enough to profit.

But who knows?

https://arxiv.org/a/buliga_m_1.html

I received today a response from the president of the french Agence Nationale de la Recherche, concerning my problems with ANR BIGBEN. I shall comment later, in detail, with mathematical arguments. For the moment, here are some short observations:
- they write that only a 3/7 of goals of the project is based on my work and moreover the leader of the project is coauthor of published work on that. My answer is that the "generalized bipotentials" invented by the leader (and mind! the name of the project) do not exist. It is just a name which the leader of the project put on my solo work which is not cited in the project, namely "On the information content of the difference from hamiltonian evolution" arXiv:1902.04598
- as there are no "generalized bipotentials", there is also misleading to reduce the "symplectic BEN" (another name which is just a rename for my older work in hamiltonian inclusions, but this time given with my coauthor, the leader of the project BIGBEN) to BEN, ie that by neglecting the inertial terms we obtain variational principles which can be used in practice. This is false. While the symplectic BEN can indeed be used to formally derive meaningful minimization principles, those minimizations work un practice only for very limited and uninteresting examples. The true power of the hamiltonian inclusions, or symplectic BEN, come from the hamiltonian side, not from the reduction to BEN like principles. This is out of reach for the BIGBEN team.
- I am of course willing to help the development of my ideas, with the condition to not be reduced to bad ones. Maybe the members of the BIGBEN recover their minds (and honour) about that. Or not. I don't care. The only thing I ask about this subject is to be treated with the collegial respect which should be an international standard.
- is clear that the ANR still avoids to recognize the value of my work, just because is in arXiv. This is contradictory. On one side they approve a project with the name, theoretical foundation and a 3/7 of goals based on this. So it looks it is valuable. On the other side, in previous correspondence I am asked to be generous and accept that by putting the work in arXiv, it is there to be appropriated. Please, for the good of science, ANR, accept that useful work, like beautiful paintings, deserves to be acknowledged, in legacy published ways (in the museum) or in arXiv, github, figshare, zenodo (in the street).

I can say with arguments that I challenged my professional career for this idea. It would be nice for the french ANR to somehow follow the path of the history, like more than 100 years ago, when the french society accepted the value of the impressionist movement in art.

UPDATE: a more formal response, together with the ANR answer and useful links here:

https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2023/01/18/answer-from-anr-concerning-the-anr-bigben-project/

Even Michelangelo needed acknowledgement... so we mere mortals be pardoned:

[from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet%C3%A0_(Michelangelo) ]

"According to Giorgio Vasari, shortly after the installation of his Pietà, Michelangelo overheard someone remark (or asked visitors about the sculptor) that it was the work of another sculptor, Cristoforo Solari, whereupon Michelangelo signed the sculpture.[9] Michelangelo carved the words on the sash running across Mary's chest.
MICHÆLANGELVS BONAROTVS FLORENTINVS FACIEBAT
(English: "Michelangelo Buonarroti, the Florentine was making this")
The signature echoes one used by the ancient Greek artists Apelles and Polykleitos. It was the only work he ever signed. Vasari also reports the anecdote that Michelangelo later regretted his outburst of pride and swore never to sign another work of his hands."

Please ask around the chemists: chemlambda needs in principle some form of cleavage (ask: furin cleavage) and 3-valent node topology (ask: o-linked glycans).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-linked_glycosylation

This is a good entry point, thank you arXiv vanity

https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/2110.08178/

Good! In all honesty, after my public response to their hm, crafted bureaucratic answer, no more claims from ANR or BIGBEN. The message passed because of evidence which can be independently verified!

Open Science - Authority 1-0 :)

I have now a missing piece which I needed since a long time: a purely algebraic description of a group with dilations, by using only the dilation structure!