rhetorical questions
for a
mathematical society
 
 
Rhetorical Questions for a Mathematical Society
 
Q1. Can't the *Mathematical Society put every paper submitted to it permanently on its web server? Would it cost too much? Would it be worthwhile to put the reviewers' comments along with the papers, including the comments on rejected papers?
 
Q2. Why can't we have standard, elegant, pregnant, common notations approved by the *Mathematical Society for all well-established branches of mathematics?
 
Q3. Can't we further simplify the symbolism in mathematical logic, so that even high school students can enjoy the proliferating cardinals?
 
Q4. Can't we persuade every author to declare that (s)he is an Affirmative Free Knowledge Writer, that is, an author whose writing is totally free from copyright restrictions.
 
Q5. Is it possible to have a program to produce TeX formatted symbols in a bubble when clicked on an ascii tex command on an html page?
 
Q6. Since the TeX system lacks graphics, wouldn't it be nice to have a graphics library of common customizable figures freely available on the Web?
 
Q7. Isn't it time we accepted figments also in set theory? Figments are those elements in a set which cannot be pulled out even by the axiom of choice, unless it is willing to lift a whole infinitesimal along with the figment. History shows that mathematicians have accepted concepts like Heaviside transform and impulse functions wholeheartedly after a healthy fight.
 
Q8. A prestigious research journal of the most popular mathematical society of the American continent insists that all its two dozen reviewers must agree to publish a paper. Should it be the other way, that is, just one reviewer can accept a paper?
 
Q9. If inanimate e, i, and \pi can co-operate so well to produce e^(i\pi)=-1, why can't the homo sapiens (human the wise)?
 
Q0. Will God forgive us if we make mathematics, the highest joy that humans can have, clannish or parochial?