So what you're saying is you don't even have the ability to start to understand if what he's saying is true, as you've not been willing to put the effort into learning the math he's referencing - that you've never heard of - and instead essentially doing high-level ad hominem saying "he'd rather get the juice from claimed persecution than actually advance the field"?
Sounds to me like Eric is right about what he says about the field in general, and why there's been little to no uptake in the indoctrinated-seemingly ideological field of physics studies.
I agree his tactics may be lacking, and that clearly he'll have to do a better job eventually - to handhold for people who have the capability to understand but your comment here supports the difficulties Eric states he's encountered with academia.
Did you try sending him an email to ask him for more guidance? That would not only help you - whether that leads to believe he's just a charlatan or helps you learn new math - but it would be an opportunity for him to learn to be a better teacher too.
Arguably the most efficient path for Eric as well, since everyone has limited time and resources, is to work with people who actually show and put in an minimally adequate effort to understanding - where connecting with him directly is perhaps the first necessary barrier to breach, so that you can have a productive conversation and at least a chance to be on the same page; and if you don't even know the math he's referencing, and can't talk his lingo, then you'd have to begin to learn the language he's speaking as a prerequisite - especially before judging him - the irony here is your ad hominem is in fact an example of persecution - and from the physics' community's mouth itself.
If you beleive there are an infinite number of functions, youd probably also believe there to be an infinite number of notations for those functions.
All math in the formalized language has come from randoms making up their own symbols and arrangement rules, often times for fun. (see Newton) Sometimes theres equivalent notations for the same concept. (see leibnitz). Just like you can say the same sentence in chinese, english, and spanish, you can express the same concept in different math. Even within the same language you can say the same thing ten different ways.
Believing dogmatically in only one notation system would be silly. Put a modern calculus textbook, a 1920s boolean logic textbook, and principia next to eachother on the table. If you had only ever seen one before you'd think the others came from space.
If Eric is making up math you would need to translate it to the dialect you understand. (Which would probably result in you understanding it, and then he might stick with the more colloquial translation.)
But this is neither evidence of prosecution or an ad hominem. It's true that his other statements about politics and the world in general, particularly his propencity to accept and promulgate conspiracy theories without evidence, make me doubt his honesty and his moral fabric, but that's a relatively minor part of why I won't spend time on this.
This is absolutely ad hominem. You're insinuating he's a fraud - without even knowing the math he's referencing - and then saying he's trying to milk a victimhood stance; eloquent ad hominem, ad hominem nonetheless.
And the rest of what you said is fine - but throwing unsubstantiated shade/ad hominem as you walk away from the challenge is something else.
I'm curious though also, what "conspiracy theories" are you claiming he propagates - and without referencing evidence? That term is often thrown away as as ad hominem to be dismissive and demonizing as well.
Well, my interviewers didnt know what p-lists were because they only knew javascript.
They thought I was retarded and I didnt get the job.