what you said


"But one thing, at least, is certain about Theodore Kaczynski--he is a brilliant mathematician." That's not clear, to me. I took a look at his entry in MathSciNet:

MR0248339 Kaczynski, T. J. The set of curvilinear convergence of a continuous function defined in the interior of a cube. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 1969 323.327. (Reviewer: J. E. McMillan) 30.62

MR0243078 Kaczynski, T. J. Boundary functions and sets of curvilinear convergence for continuous functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 141 1969 107.125. (Reviewer: J. E. McMillan) 30.62

MR0236393 Kaczynski, T. J. Boundary functions for bounded harmonic functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 137 1969 203.209. (Reviewer: J. E. McMillan) 30.62 (31.00)

MR0228409 Kaczynski, T. J. Note on a problem of Alan Sutcliffe. Math. Mag. 41 1968 84.86. (Reviewer: B. M. Stewart) 10.05

MR0210900 Kaczynski, T. J. On a boundary property of continuous functions. Michigan Math. J. 13 1966 313.320. (Reviewer: D. C. Rung) 30.62

MR0176080 Kaczynski, T. J. Boundary functions for function defined in a disk. J. Math. Mech. 14 1965 589.612. (Reviewer: C. Tanaka) 30.62

and read the 3 papers reviewed by McMillan. They have a very limited range and attract no citation by subsequent authors. It seems to me that Kaczynski made technical progress in a rather narrow field, sufficient to get him an assistant post at Berkeley, where he did not branch out into anything new. I think that you should take care with the adjective "brilliant". I suggest that "able" is more appropriate in this case.


A brilliant mathematician life is wasted by his parents. His parents should have found his problem in early stage and corrected it. Mathematics and chemistry are completely different subjects... how can he selected chemistry ( chemicals) as a solution for vendetta on industrial society. if some one is good in chemistry then he can be considered as the immature person in mathematics............. but he is a real genius in mathematics


Just found your site on Dr. Kaczynski - and it was precisely what I was looking for. The American public knows about Kaczynksi the murderer/terrorist - but there seems to be much more to him than that. Several years ago, while 'googling about (I forget the topic - most likely associated with something from Malcom Gladwell or the Freakonomics folks,) I stumbled upon this article from the Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase.htm And I was stunned after reading it. I wasn't very young, nor very old when Kaczynski was arrested - I was 26. I think, at the time, I thought most like everyone else - "another nut off the streets," and "It fits with the 'crazy genius' idea." But then I read that Atlantic article, and realized that yet again, the press really didn't do much of a story. There was much more to Kaczynksi than just bombs. Some of the themes he was writing made sense - at least what I read from the Atlantic article. Yesterday, I made the decision to read the 'Manifesto' - but that got me to thinking about his mathematics. He has his PhD - so he helped advance mathematics - no small feat. So, what, exactly was he interested in? Which lead me to your site. Thanks for posting it. I shall enjoy reading his papers.


Hi, I am a medical student taking a class on neuroanatomy. Today we learned of a nine month old baby that was hospitalized for a severe rash. At the hospital, the child was tied to the bed so that he could not itch his rash. His parents were not allowed to see or touch him. He remained in this condition for 4 weeks. Imagine tying a baby to a bed and leaving him like that for 4 weeks. I believe we would call that severe child abuse today, but back then it was a common practice. When the child came home from the hospital, he was different. Before the hospital stay, he was described by his mother as being happy and bubbly. When he returned, he had become withdrawn and despondent. The child remained this way the rest of his life. That child was Theodore Kaczynski. We now know from this tragedy and many others, that human touch it a vital part in the development of the brain and mental health. Theodore never recovered from this abuse. So remember to love and hold your children often. They need it.


Hello and thank you for making Mr. Kazinski's work available. As to your suggested classification of Mr. Kazinski, for what it's worth - I would vote for all of the above. I have read his "manifesto" and while I don't subscribe to it in it's entirelty, I do agree with much of the suggested future and feel his insights are quite prescient... Thanks again...


You know that if you read his papers outside the implications of his behavior (Bombing) He could have been your conservative friend next door. Perhaps since he was gifted with a great intellect he felt it incumbent upon himself to try to protect the rest of us from something that he saw as a great threat to society. There are many people out there that have many of the same views as Ted. He sounds perfectly rational and extremely passionate about his view of the world going to hell in a hand basket. He could have been at any of the recent .Town hall Meetings,. He doesn.t sound that crazy to me. I think he just had great passion for protecting our personal freedoms. But then there is that bombing thing. If you compare his actions to many of the things that our own government does it is not that different. Just this morning I heard of a missile strike that came from a Predator that killed 40 other people besides the one that it was intended for. Is Ted and Obama cut from the same cloth? It makes you think... hmmm. Thanks for putting up the page. I think some of his boundary function equations are used in the design of microchips.


It's most unfortunate that Dr. Kaczynski went insane, made and mailed those bombs, and killed those people. He apparently was a very brilliant mathematician, and would have no doubt added significantly to our understanding of the universe of mathematics if he had continued solely in his career as a mathematician. It's too bad that he didn't apply his brilliance to solving some or all of the problems he noted in his manifesto, ... i.e.; I saw another documentary about another mathematician who has generated a formula of sorts that can predict/analyze future events.


Like most people, probably, I ran across your web site by chance. As it happens, I am a university Mathematics professor. I am sure that you mean well, but I think you create a very misleading impression with your statement that Theodore Kaczynski was a ``brilliant mathematician.'' He received a PhD from a good, but not top rate, university and wrote a few mathematical papers of no particular interest. I would certainly agree with ``competent mathematician,'' but that's about as far as I would go. As for the suggestion that a ``mechanical engineer somewhere could use Kaczynski's equations in a real-life problem,'' I consider it extremely unlikely. I don't think, though, that the question of Kaczynski's mathematical level is really relevant to an evaluation of either his other writings or his actions.


I think it's neat you put this forum out there. Thanks! I read the replies of others you posted, and it's an interesting mix of views. As for my two cents: I have nothing to say about his mathematician side...that is SO far out of my league. However, I remember reading Kaczynkski's "Manifesto" in the Washington Post when it appeared, and being impressed by the fact that there's nothing "nuts" about this man's thoughts. I found it poignant and tragic, actually. But I knew that few would have patience to read it or try to understand its contents. There's always resistance among most of the population to engage in ideas so outside the mainstream when there are bills to be paid, kids to be schooled, lawns to be mowed, cars to be washed. The key to understanding Kaczynski's path, I believe, is understanding Asperger's syndrome. My side of the family has a tendency toward it, and one of my sons is considered to have a mild form of it. He's 8, and I just sat him down last week to talk with him about it after years of talking "around" him, though he's probably caught onto many a conversation I've had over the years. I put it in terms of his brain being wired differently. What intellectual gifts he has are offset by his social shortcomings, and I feel lucky he is a "mild" case. I can't express enough thanks to all the teachers in special education who have handled him since age 2-1/2. More and more of the population knows about it these days, and it's neat that I can explain his quirks to new teachers or camp counselors with one simple word: "Asperger's." Then they know what to expect. But until recently, people--mostly men--like Kaczynski were, and still are, dismissed as oddballs. They are ostracized for a quality that nature built into them, and ultimately, that alienated intellect will spiral out of control, precisely because no one WILL listen to them. An ironic surprise: many Asperger's folks actually experience feelings of moral injustice far more intensely than the average person, not the other way around. It's typical for them to be obsessed with rules when younger, and they cannot shake off feelings of injustice easily and will go into a rage over unexpectedly small issues. But if you look closely, it's because imperfect justice was meted out, due to usual constraints of dealing with the masses. E.g., a classroom teacher takes recess away from everyone because a few chose to break a rule. An Asperger's kid has a really hard time with that. And that's where the special ed teachers help the kids--smoothing out the social process, almost as an interpreter. It's sad that this understanding is only a recent arrival on the social scene. So that's why I find Kaczynki's case poignant and tragic. His ideas are ahead of his time, and as we enter a recession with concerns over global warming and energy production, maybe his ideas will seem less crazy to those who still google his manifesto. My hope is that society will re-commit itself to caring for everyone's needs and keeping everyone in the fold--even the most frustrating, antisocial geniuses that nature springs on us. That Ted Kaczynski went "Luddite" by living as a hermit is fascinating. Given his antisocial streak, it's not surprising, but to give up creature comforts and affluence of 20th century living is pretty amazing. No Maytag washer? No Dunkin' Donuts? No e-mail? :)


I like your website, I think you did a good job. Kaczynski.s papers are noteworthy to say the least. This is from Wikipedia: "It is not enough to say he was smart." He earned his Ph.D. by solving, in less than a year, a math problem that Piranian had been unable to solve. Kaczynski's specialty was a branch of complex analysis known as geometric function theory. "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 people in the country understood or appreciated it", said Maxwell O. Reade, a retired math professor who served on Kaczynski's dissertation committee. I have a master.s in electrical engineering and about twenty years experience in design engineering. I pride myself in keeping up with my math and I have taken several courses in complex analysis. Kaczynski.s papers are unfathomable to me, not that that proves anything, except to say that the average professional engineer would be need several weeks and a lot of help to understand just one of his papers. I know this from experience. As far as his work making an impact on society, I believe that is indisputable. Generalized function theory is related to conformal mapping, which concepts are used in solving many control systems problems, especially nonlinear and H infinity systems. I would dispute however, any idea that a person well versed in math is automatically comfortable with technology and computers. Many abstract mathematical thinkers consider computer programming to be a simple-minded waist of effort and see no intellectual challenge in developing algorithms and then translating them into a repetitious code. Engineers do that. We use the creative and unique results of scientists and mathematicians to solve practical problems. Kaczynski actually had a hard time with technology, or at least technological concepts. He flunked physics when he was an undergrad at Harvard. That might be why his bombs didn.t work so well. His manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future, is a fascinating read. He is very logical. He also believed in the Grandfather Rabbit and the Will O Wisp god when he was holed up in Montana. As far as changing my opinion of him, I think not. He attempted to murder 230 people on an airliner in 1978 did murder three innocent people. He is a mass murderer and a serious danger to society. I am interested in him the same way I am interested in Hitler or Stalin. It is so curious to me how people of great intelligence can be devoid of compassion for other people. How they can objectify others and rationalize the most heinous behavior without the slightest sign of remorse. It is proof positive to me that evil is not simply a matter of ignorance. Let one of the other the 10 or 12 people who can understand Kaczynski.s work mentioned by Mr. Reade above further the field of mathematics. Kaczynski doesn.t deserve to be alive.


In 1957-58 Iwas a night school student at IIT. I took a a course called "Anatomy Of Mathematics" by L. H. Wilcox ,who taught the course. It was the time of sputnik. The goverment had a program to get young students to study at universities. Ted would have been about 15 years studying at nearby U. of Chicago. IIT was the best Math school at that time. I had out standing Math teachers from U. Chicago and Argon Labs all with Phd. There was a young kid there who never spoke except when Wilcox asked Ted to tell the class the answer to a most difficult problem. The class was filled with Phd camidates. Ted fit all the information about this student. Was the student Ted Kaczynski?


Kaczynski has something to say. How many college professors are on a level with Kaczynski as a thinker and teacher? His insights into the effects of technology on freedom and the human condition deserve to be debated. In this corner Bill Gates and The Road Ahead; in the opposing corner Theodore Kaczynski and The Unabomber Manifesto. Only one side of the question is being heard. My impression is that even convicted felons are allowed to engage in some recreational activities, such as boxing. Kaczynski should not be deprived the opportunity to box, though in this case it is the square ring of ideas.


I think he is insane, and came to believe all of his own delusions, and when he finally killed those people he thought he was saving the planet.


I think he was right and you are talking like the system he was fighting with.


Because other than a mention of him in a main stream movie facts with the complete background of his genius were not there.


this is in reply to Ted Kaczynski. I found your page interesting. It took alot of guts for his brother to just stand up and turn in his brother, which we all know he loved. I'm sure he still has a lot of sleepless nights and I am glad his brother thought about the vitums.I just want to say remember behind every bad human there once was a good person down deep, and a family who loves them,too. I do feel he should pay for his crimes, after all their are alot of family and friends who have suffered from his mistakes. Thank you for your time.


Last night I saw an NBC Time&Again episode devoted to Ted K. and the 18 year search for him including his arrest and subsequent attempts by many to understand what drove him to his actions. I made several observations while watching this program and yours was the first web site I was directed to by my search engine. During this program, I made the following observations and opinions concerning what might have been behind his actions: Think of something as simple in human nature as selfishness and selflessness. Most people who are either very selfish or very selfless usually have one thing in common, they need others around them. They are usually social animals, indeed, they need others to fulfill their desire to be either selfish or selfless. Other people in their lives gives them the opportunity to live out their destiny, their desires, for it is difficult to be selfish and to express selfishness without others around and equally difficult to do so if you are selfless. There is also a small minority of people who are either extremely selfish or selfless and NOT social. Those who are selfless and not social usually tend to end up being priests or monks, those who are selfish and not social often end up like Ted K. It is my suggestion that the driving force behind this man's actions was something as pure and simple as the raw human emotion of self ego and extreme selfishness. Without the proximity of people with which to live out, to vent, to fulfill the desire and appetites of his ego and subsequent selfishness, he invented a cause and a modus operandi to do so. This was not about the dangers of technology, this was all about Ted K. and those like him usually have the same MO, the difference is Ted was particularly clever and inventive. They often hide behind some bullshit smoke screen of a cause because they cannot be honest enough to admit that what they are really seeking is simple attention for no other cause except recognition of their own worth. And there in lies the dilemma. As long as they are not social, they can never truly fulfill their destiny in having the world clamoring at their doorstep, unless of-course they get caught, which is why I do believe that the more notoriety they achieve, the greater is their own unconscious desire to be caught for then and only then, are they able to truly fulfill their destiny. Consequently, most types like Ted K. have two tremendous forces at work inside them, one conscious force saying, you must never get caught or you cannot continue to do your work, your calling, your medium of expressing your greatness and the other more unconscious force that says, you ain't ever gonna get the credit for all the work you have accomplished as long as you remain anonymous. To be sure, there are many others besides Ted K. who have the same driving force of ego behind their actions and accomplishments but if they can manage to be social enough, how they end up expressing this ego usually goes to the credit rather than to the hindrance of others. Ted K. was a smart man, no doubt, so was Abe Lincoln, Ted K. also had an ego, so did Lincoln. One might even say that there was greatness within Ted K., there was with Lincoln too but the difference is Lincoln used his smarts, his ego and his greatness for the greater good of others. Ted used his at the cost of others and ONLY for himself For me Ted K. was not terribly special in spite of his "accomplishments" or the circumstances that life may have put him into. We ALL have the same ego of needs driving us forward, in this respect he was no different than anyone else, he just wasn't smart enough or tough enough or willing enough to humiliate himself enough times to create and/or find an environment where he could fulfill his ego's destiny in some constructive and positive fashion. He never gave up on believing in himself but he gave up on believing in anything else. We all are faced with the same problem in our lives. Every person wants to believe there is some meaning in life and that he/she can somehow make a difference. I think most all people would like the rest of the world to look at them as being special but there are rules in the game and the 1st and golden rule is to be of service to others. Ted overcame very little and accomplished very little by resorting to destruction to seek his fame. That way is actually the easier way, anyone can take that direction, you don't need any great skills to compete in a big market except maybe an occasional Tim McVey, you don't need to worry about doing the right thing over the long haul either like most people who want to seek their fame in some service to others. One can destroy very quickly, this takes no great skill or effort, to build something that is constructive for yourself is more difficult and something that is constructive for others as well as yourself even more difficult. Although Ted was clever and able to elude the law, there is really nothing virtuous or commendable about this man's life or spirit. He had the same addiction we all have but he was weak enough to succumb to them in a futile and sick fashion.


I think our challenge is to "see" for ourselves exactley what it is that T.K. is seeing. What drove him to the actions he has taken, not from a place of blame or right or wrong. What if what he saw is also the "key" to the things going on in our society (school shootings, war, hunger, cancer, etc.) What can you tell me about John Bullough? Has he ever seen the "Matrix".


I don't know so far are there someone who already apply the bounded harmonic function. But there are many application not only on the pratical.Is this function can be connect with the other branches of maths. Such as topology and differitial geometry.The abstraction of this function is great and very interesting. I think the remain of Ted's work will give more space and new conception for us to explore.


I think your motive is humane. You merely want to show to the world that despite of the evil that was done, there is humanity in all of us. Do you know if there is a way I can communicate with Dr. Kaczynski ?


I stumbled across your web page on Ted Kaczynski somehow. I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish with your page: but do not mistake this remark as criticism. It is simply incredulity. I am incredulous because the answer to the question you raise on your page is obvious: Ted Kaczynski is a paranoid schizophrenic, who also happens to have been a mathematician. Why don't you say this, instead of dancing around with the idea of possible value of his mathematical work? Yes, he was brilliant. Yes, he was and is schizophrenic, and yes, he is a cold blooded murderer. What more is there to say? If you want comments on his publications, then I will say this. They are all the same! They all originate from what was obviously an exceptionally good Ph.D. thesis, but there is nothing more than that. They all extend it, embellish it, but do not go in new directions. They are narrow and technical. So you should not overestimate his mathematical accomplishments. Many graduate students in math write a good Ph.D. thesis and, like Ted, embellish it with a few papers that extend the same ideas in obvious directions, and then do nothing else creative during the rest of their careers. Most of these people disappear from mathematics research and go on to make themselves useful in other ways. Unfortunately, our friend Ted didn't, and as his psychosis developed, he chose to take out his anger in bizarre and terrible ways. It's a sad story, but there is nothing more to it than that. There is nothing in his published work for any mathematician to get excited about. Very ordinary stuff, actually. He's just a smart guy who had a promising beginning, and then went nuts and took out his rage on the rest of the world. Don't make his story something it isn't. A better point to make might be something about the vulnerability of all of us to a tragic and horrible disease like the one he has.


Sir a guest on the expert witness radio show (www expertwitnessradio.com) stated he had obtained a list of people that were experimented without their knowledge or consent with L.S.D.during the 1960's / the guest then stated a T. KACZYNSKI name was on the list - the experiments were conducted to determine the effectivreness on LSD on a range of people from soldiers to college professors- could this be true ? thanks


On your "Writings of Ted Kaczynski" web page, you say "Whether he is a clever, calculating murderer or a victim of mental illness is not for me to judge." Is this to suggest that those are the only two explanations for his criminal acts? What about the possibility that he is a visionary - fanatic but not insane - revolutionist?


Greetings seemingly benevolent earthman. In reference to your question concerning the usefulness of Mr. Kaczynski's mathematics; it isn't possible, in my opinion, to construct a totally useless mathematics. Even the great number theorists, G. H. Hardy comes to mind, who seemed to take great delight in stating that their mathematics was or never could be "useful" have time and time again been proven wrong. I think it also goes to the matter of Mr. Kaczynski's sanity. Surely he more than most was in a position to appreciate that his work would have some technological application or benefit no matter how coyly he disguised his ideas. Since your return address is rpi.edu I'll surmise that you see mathematicians on a regular basis. Ever notice the ridiculous one upmanship that goes on between the pure mathematicians and those who apply their knowledge? My advanced Calculus teacher was of that ilk. He would constantly say "math is so beautiful I wish it was good for nothing" which I felt was extremely appropriate as that was exaclty what I was getting out of his class(I told him so...). So in the final analysis there is no way that Ted could not have known that there'd be a "use" for his mathematics. At the very least he should have suspected it. But extremely brillant people sometimes snap. Dr. Nash (can't remember his first name) of the Nash embeddedness fame went totally nuts. How about Newton? (of course I'm sure all that mercury and lead didnt' help *LOL*) But I digress.... thanks for listening. :)


I stumbled upon your page while digging around for stuff on polynomial mappings of bounded complex functions. I really don't care either way about Kaczynski, but your page does say something about the nature of mathematics. Specifically that all the math you create becomes bricks in a wall, and the bricks really don't care about who put them there, they only care about the wall.


Hi, I'm a computerexpert. I think Ted Kaczynski was a brillliant man, but he should have used his brilliant mind to contribute to the fields of humaniora and used arguments against the technology instead of trying to kill people who were working with technology. It's a shame, that such a brilliant mind as Kaczynski's was wasted the way it was. I'm sure, that he could have been a splendid helper for mankind if he just had put his mind to it. With an IQ of 170 which it was said that he has, then he could easily have done what he wanted to. Why didn't he just become a painter or something that could have kept him away from the technology that he hated? Let's hope, that there will never come another like Ted Kaczynski.


Why not? Some of us share your sentiments and are grateful!


In my childhood I had a similer amonut of math abilities. At 2. grade I could deal with 5. grade maths. I have learned my english in a non-speaking country without having english when I went in school. I learned it simply from the media. I In a way I had also some kind of problems regarding my social life as I grew older due to my background as a foreigner in a western country. My dark-logical side requested a dramatic solution to my problems that would under-act those horrific terrorist activities of 11 of September look rather calm. I wanted to invent an a-bomb and use it on people which are the natives of this european country which I live in. But of course those were just some fantasies. But I guess when the border which separates reality from fiction desapears, it can make a human commit horror on a murderous scale. I have been fortune of having a nice family and some kind friends to assist me through those darkest hours. As I grow older I am finding the peace with my troubled soul on a dayly bassis and I have found a degree of harmony. Unfortunatly not all people can be so gifted or lucky, and Ted is a sad story which has acomplished much less than his own potentials would enable him. If you read his Manifesto http://www.courttv.com/trials/unabomber/manifesto/una1.html you would find a great amount of truth in his words and his statements reflects a great logical mind. In it self it is a very interresting idealogy, even though if you do not agree on all the details but the over all picture is very inventive style of thinking. If another person but the Unabomber published a book based on the same logical menatlity he would perhaps become a new Karl Marx of the new eara. Who knows. I guess Ted is one person and Unabomber is another even though they live in the same body. In my case the both personalities in away pacified eachother.


Do you really know what was going through his mind when he became the Unabomber? No one does so we can expect anything from him.


I'm reminded of an old agage: "Anything sufficiently complex is indistinguishable from magic". Does the complexity of this material (since you are not a mathematician) inpress you? you may not be aware that his dissertation is not all that complex to someone with a BS in mathematics. You are impressed by smoke and mirrors. He could be dead wrong (in fact, he isn't)


It is interesting that the lawyer appointed to deal with T. Kaczynski's papers, photographs, etc. has a Hungarian name -- "Balazs." This is definite! A web sites such as yours is more than welcome. Irrespective of T. Kaczynsky's crimes, he is indeed, said to have been a mathematical prodigy and did publish papers on mathematics that were accepted by journals, and judged by other mathematicians who are familiar with his specialty, as excellent. Needless to say, once a person gets away from "normal" existence, he is already in some trouble! If he embarks on a criminal career and actually kills people in a premeditated fashion, most people turn away completely and would even like to forget the person's name. I am not really fascinated by criminals, no matter how clever, but Kaczynski is an exception because of his views on the scientific/technological society that has been created. AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I AM ALMOST 100% AGREEMENT WITH HIM!!!! Through the use of the "scientific method" we had gotten ourselves into a kind of black hole, the gravitational pull of which is so strong that it even "swallows" light. In a similar fashion, the pull of the scientific outlook and practice entirely destroyed, YES, DESTROYED(!!!), "swallowed," human imagination that would point to a real and practical alternative to our present "style" of existence. Long before the "Unibomber" was caught and we became familiar with his views, I had already given much thought to the effect of technology on the human being, on his "psyche," his often confused and debilitated state of existence, and I am still, today convinced that we are heading toward some kind of "collapse." I doubt very much that I will be touched by this -- after all, I'm now 64 years old -- but when I look at young children I cannot help asking myself, "What will their lives will be like? Will they live to be sixty four years old? Will they live in a world that has the same amount of comfort and standard of living that we, and they now enjoy?" There are not many people who like to think such thoughts. The thoughts are "negative," and especially native born Americans prefer to stay away from them. It obviously causes most people a great deal of discomfort and they are quick to change the subject and talk about "happy" things. I had learned not to talk doomsday talk in my immediate environment. The "crudest" reply to criticism of any kind is, "Well, if it's so bad in this country, why don't you go back to where you came from?" Or, if you dare say you think Theodore Kaczynski hits the nail right on the head more often than not, you will be accused of being a "fellow traveler" of a nasty and horrible murderer. But as you point out, what if the guy's formulas could be used to design a more efficient air plane? Would people refuse to travel on them if they learned that this efficient new flying machine was designed by engineers who employed formulas thought up by a murderer? I think not. Since this is not a dissertation of any kind, just some thoughts that occurred to me as I was reading your text, I need not arrive at a neat conclusion. I will simply stop and CONGRATULATE you for having gone to the trouble to create this web site!


Today on "Face the Nation" they did a recap on him (anniversery or something). When he was captured I wasn't interested in math, so yes, i did view him as a common psycho criminal etc. Now that I'm growing to love math/technology, I was fascinated by the mention that he was a math genius, so i googled his name to see what kind of work he did. It is interesting. Of course his genius does not justify his crimes, as innocent people were harmed needlessly. I do not fault you at all for your kacinski website, and i agree with you in that this man is fascinating and a definitely noteworthy case study.


You concentrate on Ted Kaczynski's mathematical gifts and publications. This is a needed corrective to the galimatias about this misunderstood genius promulgated in much of the mass media. His genius and his gifts are going to waste in jail. My apprehension is that he did not get a fair trial. He wanted to defend himself based on his belief system. There seems to be little reason to doubt the sincerity of his beliefs, however misguided. But nevertheless he is an American citizen entitled to defend himself against the charges made in the indictment. Whether Kaczynski was innocent of or guilty of the charges made in the indictment, he is as sane as the next man. He is entitled to a defense, and not one chosen for him. He was entitled to change attorneys and he was entitled to be his own attorney. The inference is unavoidable that Judge Garland Burrell did not want to hear such a defense, and denied the request more to benefit his own career than to do justice and guarantee the accused a fair trial--which is what the American criminal justice system is supposed to require. According to the Wikipedia online encyclopedia: "Kaczynski later attempted to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing it was involuntary. Judge Garland Burrell denied his request, and that denial was affirmed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As of 2004, Kaczynski was serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole in the Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado."


I think you might want to add the following two citations (the problem is not the (-1)x = -x problem):

1.
Title:           Note on a Problem of Alan Sutcliffe
Author(s):       T. J. Kaczynski
Source:          Mathematics Magazine, Vol. 41, No. 2. (Mar., 1968), pp.
             84-86.
Stable URL:          
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-570X%28196803%2941%3A2%3C84%3ANOAPOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J

2.
Title:           Problems and Solutions
Author(s):       Zalman Usiskin; James Bookey; Donald P. Minassian; L.
             Carlitz; R. A. Scoville; Marlow Sholander; Sidney H. L.
             Kung; Murray S. Klamkin; P. G. Pantelidakis; Frank J.
             Papp; George E. Andrews; R. A. Struble; Herta T. Freitag;
             Michael Goldberg; H. L. Krall; H. W. Gould; Robert S.
             Doran; Eugen Peter Bauhoff; Bob Prielipp; J. A. H. Hunter;
             E. P. Starke; T. J. Kaczynski; Richard A. Gibbs; Richard
             L. Breisch; NSF Class at University of California at
             Berkeley; K. R. S. Sastry; Robert P. Goldberg; W. C.
             McDaniel; Michael Garrick; Jack Lochhead; Charles W.
             Trigg; Gregory Wulczyn; David L. Silverman; Patricia La
             Fratta; Benjamin L. Schwartz; Sid Spital
Source:          Mathematics Magazine, Vol. 44, No. 5. (Nov., 1971), pp.
             286-299.
Stable URL:          
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-570X%28197111%2944%3A5%3C286%3APAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q


In the March-April 1968 edition of "Mathematics Magazine" (Vol 41, #2), there is another, hitherto unknown, published article by Ted Kaczynski. It is called "Note on a problem of Alan Sutcliffe". It is about two pages long. There is no abstract. This issue (probably because of April fools day) also has a very funny parody of mathematical jargon called "On Some =F0-Hedral Surfaces in Quasi-Quasi Space". I was actually re-reading that when I came upon Kaczinski's paper. I'm sure it must be worth something, either to a mathematician or a historian. I'll probably try to sell it. Anyway, I thought you'd like to know.


Maybe T. Kaczynski already saved the world from a future in which the machine enslaved the humans. Who knows?


I want to keep this simple and straight to the point. I think it's a great website showing mathematical works of a genius. Also as a note I just think how its interesting the ones who are most into saying he is a "is schizophrenic, and yes, he is a cold blooded murderer" seem to be the ones who not only don't look into the situation but know the answer before the facts were even presented. If he is a schizophrenic then how did was he proven sane in court? His work is true if you look into it an try to open your eyes and see what there is not just what your told to see. Just because a person doesn't want it to be true doesn't make it false.


basically, i think that ted should have sent one of his special little packages to YOU. this misanthrope murdered and maimed innocents because he felt that somehow, he was in a different category than his victims. just because he happened to get a few mathematical papers published, doesn't put him in some "special category" of people who are above the law. geez...


Kaczynski brought unproper responses, but the question he had rose IS a good question! And if we, who refuse his radicalist kaj cynic-apocalyptic solution, do not find any good answer to it, I fear that the future of Civilisation, human dignity, kaj freedom, are go to weird collapse and perdition!