Why bother doing a witch hunt and leaving out that they did Stats at Yale..
Because why does it matter? Are you suggesting undergrad stats at Yale is comparable to a PhD in number theory?
I guess it's not clear to me why it's even interesting to talk about their LinkedIn or their PhD in the first place? It's not like not having a PhD will make the work any more true or not. Wouldn't it be more interesting to discuss the merits of the post? There's really little point in trying to say that their LinkedIn has different info than the comment therefore the submission is invalid.
But, suppose I did actually hold that belief for some reason, then it would seem fairly intellectually dishonest to withhold relevant info in my pointed inquisition wherein I just characterize them as someone lacking mathematical experience at all, let alone from a world class university. But maybe that's just me!
I think they're pointing it out because stating they're working towards a PhD in something when they've just graduated and don't seem to be (as far as we can tell) enrolled in a PhD program is misleading. Note that the parent isn't the one that brought up their PhD, the author is, presumably to head off the big question marks everyone reading this got as to what it is.
It's unclear whether this page is something that could be useful, and deserves attention. The fact that the author is at best making misleading statements is useful in determining whether you should take their claims at face value.
They claim "Finite Field Assembly is a programming language that lets you emulate GPUs on CPUs".
It's not a programming language, it's a handful of C macros, and it doesn't in any way emulate a GPU on the CPU. I'll be honest, I think the author is trying to fake it till they make it, they seem interested in mathematics but their claims are far beyond what they've demonstrated, and their post history reveals a series of similar submissions. In so far as they're curious and want to experiment I think it's reasonable to encourage, but they're also asking for money and don't seem to be delivering much.
Why would they post the 4th article in a series where the previous ones require you to pay?
> I guess it's not clear to me why it's even interesting to talk about their LinkedIn or their PhD in the first place?
Am I taking crazy pills? I didn't bring it up, the guy himself, here at the top of this very thread branch, wrote specifically explicitly that he's a PhD student working on number theory.
> Wouldn't it be more interesting to discuss the merits of the post?
There is no merit, nothing to discuss. I linked the corresponding GitHub below so you can judge for yourself.