From: "phoebe ayers" phoebe.wiki@gmail.com: (...)
Sure, and maybe this isn't even a problem per se -- it's the job of scholarly discourse to present and discuss new ideas, etc. etc. I am thinking more about a failure of scientific publishing as meaning a (theoretically) respectable journal published by a (theoretically) respectable publisher shouldn't really be an unquestioned soapbox for one guy who may or may not be writing patent nonsense.
(...)
If one guy writes patent nonsense in mathematics, then lots of unqualified people can figure that out and call to hav his material flushed or his appointment questioned. In chaos, it is hard to do that without demonstrations or source code. In a journal about chaos, though, the beauty of demonstrations might weigh against dismissal of the author. Vetting his language might be enough. I remember this author of the FOTD (Fractal of the Day) (Jim Muth?). He has a crude manner, in English, of describing his method in the lead-up of his articles, and he provides source code, so you can figure out what he means. And, if you know the tricks in FRACTINT, then you can stuff his execution times into a few seconds, get pretty much the same thing, and then go on to play with his equation.