An Invitation to "Dynamic Mathematics": The Full Text of the Letter Addressed to Professor Gowers on May 30, 2026

Preface: Public Statement Regarding the Disclosure of the Letter to Professor Gowers
Out of a sincere admiration for Professor William Timothy Gowers’ spirit in advocating for academic freedom by founding Discrete Analysis (DA)—a concrete action against the monopoly of traditional journals—and with full trust in DA's courageous acceptance of my Collatz submission into the peer-review process, I dispatched this invitation letter to Professor Gowers with the utmost sincerity upon receiving the review track notification. In this letter, I explicitly proposed the core concept of "Dynamic Mathematics" and informed Professor Gowers that I had already established its foundational theoretical framework. I extended a heartfelt invitation to him, along with his doctoral students, to jointly inaugurate a new era in mathematics.
Concurrently, I noted Professor Gowers’ confusion regarding the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence, specifically manifested in his public proclamations that AI would soon independently achieve research breakthroughs to write doctoral dissertations, alongside his anxiety that his PhD students would consequently face unemployment. I informed Professor Gowers that such worries are unwarranted: the foundational design principles of AI dictate that it is perpetually constrained by existing paradigms, completely lacking humanity's capacity for paradigm-shifting innovation. This is precisely the historical opportunity for mathematicians to demonstrate human intelligence, suppress the threat of AI, and restore human intellectual confidence.
However, mere moments before I pressed the send button on this letter, I witnessed the rejection notice from DA and its sole referee report. The decision to reject was finalized within an interval of just a few hours following the previous procedural notification; it was precisely within this brief temporal gap that my letter was composed. My goal was never a mere quest for publication, but a search for a kindred spirit; thus, I dispatched the letter regardless. Upon a subsequent, meticulous examination of the referee report, I discovered that it contained monumental, rudimentary errors. The report completely ignored the core proof methodology explicitly stated in my paper—namely, that "my proof is not based on random probabilistic calculations" but rather on a "deterministic settling of dynamic structures." Instead, the referee dogmatically fixated on the literal semantics of probabilistic terminology used in my paper, and on that basis erroneously concluded that the thesis was entirely flawed.
My employment of those "probabilistic" terms was born purely out of necessity, as "Dynamic Mathematics" currently possesses no off-the-shelf nomenclature, forcing me to borrow antiquated vocabulary to articulate revolutionary concepts. Conversely, for the few original "Dynamic Mathematics" neologisms I coined, the review report criticized them as being vaguely defined. To state it plainly: the referee report completely evaded my core proof logic, pedantically nitpicking literal semantics while deliberately leveraging static structures to fabricate "proof errors" to mislead non-specialist readers. My Collatz argument encapsulates the nascent philosophy of Dynamic Mathematics, and my primary objective in submitting this manuscript was to locate a collaborator capable of advancing this new mathematical system with me. Yet, facts have proven that they—including Professor Gowers himself—have failed to grasp even the rudimentary concept of Dynamic Mathematics, let alone understand its operational structure.
I immediately exposed five fundamental errors within the referee report and officially submitted my rebuttal and appeal. However, over twenty days have elapsed without a single response from Professor Gowers or DA. In that May 30 letter, I unreservedly disclosed my dynamic mathematics and related breakthrough theoretical research. This was an act of complete candor and profound trust on my part toward Professor Gowers. Given the current evasive posture of Gowers and DA, maintaining the privacy of this letter now exposes my intellectual property to the risk of expropriation. Consequently, I am now compelled to make this long letter public to securely establish my legal priority and timestamp (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20917447) for the founding of Dynamic Mathematics.
The disclosure of this letter stands as a permanent record of history: On May 30, 2026, Feng Yuling, the founder of Dynamic Mathematics, sincerely invited the renowned mathematician Timothy Gowers to co-pioneer new mathematics, candidly disclosing monumental discoveries.
The march of epochs will be deterred by no one. The advancement of mathematics can never be halted by the institutional tyranny of the Journal of Symbolic Logic (JSL) stating that "even if it is correct, it will not be accepted," nor can it be comprehended by Gowers’ outdated paradigm of "static mathematical thinking."