Objective
The contradictions of the foundations of mathematics and the formulation of consistent axioms are cited in the 'topic'. The author's original goal was the elaboration together with an established mathematician and the joint publication in scientific journals.
Well over 100 scientists were contacted. About half answered, partly indifferently, mostly the correctness of the statements was disputed. But two replies were positive in tenor: "I wish you luck with your 'nothing' attack" and "I'm sure you're right. But I have to decline your offer of cooperation. I don't want to expose myself to the slashing and stabbing that will follow."
25 attempts by the author to publish in scientific journals were unsuccessful. Most of the articles were rejected without comment, some were declared incorrect. There was no response to the author's objection with the refutation of the criticism. One reviewer commented, "If the author were right, mathematics as we persue it today would have been wiped out." This opinion is incorrect. Nothing changes in the applied mathematics, but the contradictory foundations are revised.
The official scientific community is unwilling to perceive facts that refute unreal mathematical dogmas. Publication is prevented, scientific discourse is denied.1 The lack of current affiliations, i.e. membership in scientific institutions or networks, was also cited as a reason.
With his website, the author aims to persuade an interested public to comment on the author's results, be it in agreement or disagreement. He would like to express his gratitude in advance for that. Especially the opinion of mathematicians, logicians, representatives of the philosophy of mathematics and other scientists is desirable.
The author points out that by revealing the ongoing crisis in the foundations of mathematics, he is not proposing any theory that could possibly be wrong again. Facts are presented that prove errors in the fundamentals that last for centuries and millennia. The correct description of facts is true.
1 The author concedes that a few of his first articles did not comply with scientific standards.