Would any of our Sophisticated Theologians™ here at DU care to comment on this?

[LTX]

35. And here is a test for you.

Please describe how the following is obviously fake:

Let ? = A. Is it possible to extend isomorphisms? We show that D´ is stochastically orthogonal and trivially affine. In (10), the main result was the construction of p-Cardano, compactly Erdős, Weyl functions. This could shed important light on a conjecture of Conway–d’Alembert.

It is, in fact, gibberish. It nevertheless received an acceptance letter from Advances in Pure Mathematics, which included comments by an anonymous peer reviewer that are themselves a study in gibberish:

For the abstract, I consider that the author can’t introduce the main idea and work of this topic specifically. We can’t catch the main thought from this abstract. So I suggest that the author can reorganise the descriptions and give the keywords of this paper.

How is that possible? Well, just as the gibberish in the "hoax" paper in the o/p passed initial muster with some superficial and pretentious theologians, Marcie's paper passed muster with some superficial and pretentious mathematicians. In both cases, to actually discern the lack of cogency one need only apply the basic tools of human reasoning.

You seem to be under the impression that academic tom-foolery and pretension is unique to theology. I find that surpassingly strange, given the abundance of evidence that it is shared by any number of other disciplines.

And just in passing, my Rabbi was a mathematician first, and only later a theologian. But as I said, I was young and innocent. I guess I just failed to recognize him as an ignorant old fool.