Rectifications
The informations given on the timing of my common work with B(autista), R(oiter) and S(almeron) show that Ringel’s allegations are fundamentally wrong. The truth is that the preliminary version of BRS has not been influenced by any suggestion or advice of mine. The main results of my preliminary version were sent to BRS before I got any information on their proof for the existence of semimultiplicative bases. Apart from the proof of one lemma ̶ which I sent 2 weeks later ̶ BRS were in possession of my proofs when I got the major arguments of their version. Besides cosmetics, all the basic results of the published version where known by the 4 authors when they decided to publish in common. The common work consisted in writing a new proof of chosen results on the basis of a chosen prior knowledge. The needed techniques were known. The common work itself was tiring, but humdrum.
There remains one boring question: Why did Ringel dare to publish a report that much contrary to good faith and reason? Since he avoids revealing his sources, I am reduced to find hints and presumptions.
Andrej Roiter ̶ strong will, noble person who passed too early ̶ does not come into question as leaker.
Leonardo Salmerón has supported me with his knowledge up to the last working evening. Under the 4 coauthors he was probably the only one, who scrutinized the proofs of all three versions up to the smallest detail. Nonetheless, Ringel denied him any right to priority.
Raymundo Bautista was granted the right to read Ringel‘s manuscript before printing (see Ringel’s homepage). 16 years before he had assured Ringel of the existence of a version G and thus had blocked Ringel’s first intrusion. Nine years later he answers my complaints as follows: Concerning the new-old problem you propose me I suggest to see if we can agree on a common version on the development of our paper. If this is so, either myself or both of us can send to Ringel some explanatory note (16/04/2014).
Some follow-up was needed to get an explanation in august 2014: At the beginning I thought that writing my own version was easy, but each time I had new information or exchange of information with Leonardo I was forced to
change my version. Really there are many things about our work I have forgotten.
Some facts I recalled reading your description.
Maybe, Bautista should have informed me in 2005 about Ringel’s rhetoric extravagances. Maybe, he should have informed Ringel in august 2014 about his memory lapses. Maybe, he should have followed my advice to spur Ringel to withdraw such fundamental errors from internet, or to correct them on the spot where they arise.
Clearly, memory lapses on 25 years old events are perfectly understandable, all the more so as Bautista was active in several domains in 1983. But why did he allow others to be mistaken in his name? Why did he not look again at his documents?
Clearly, Bautista-Salmeron’s proof of semimultiplicativity was a remarkable conceptual performance. They were kind enough to give also a chance to my more experimental approach. The collaboration was friendly and productive. And last but not least, they gave me the opportunity to look at a significant problem, which I would not have solved otherwise. All this I will not forget.
Now, what about recidivist Prof. Dr., Dr. honoris causa Claus Michael Ringel? He has ‘good’ reasons not to be interested in my opinion, as he wrote me on the 9th of January 2014: «Soweit ich Raymundo kenne (und ich glaube, ich kenne ihn recht gut), ist er das, was man früher eine ‚ehrliche Haut‘ nannte. Von Dir dagegen weiss ich, dass Du immer wieder getrickst und getaeuscht hast um Dir und Deinen
Leuten Vorteile zu verschaffen». In english: «As far as I know Raymundo (and I believe that I know him fairly well), he is what people earlier called an honest soul. In contrast, I know about you that you tricked and cheated again and again in order to give some edge to you and your guys».
What I know about me is that I never acted as a job broker. In the case of my pupils, I generally was not even consulted. When I was, I answered as appropriate: 2 times yes, 5 times no. So what about Ringel’s statements? Does he just give us a chance to evaluate his qualification in scrutinizing both internal teamwork and human souls?
pg october 2015