Journal published a paper, ignoring my objections as a referee A few months back I received a request from a reputed journal to review an article. The article was in a fast-track mode because of its assumed importance. I did review it, and found that it makes some improvement over the existing models, and hence does not rate high on the novelty axis. Moreover, there were serious problems in the article both conceptual and mathematical. Lastly, the English used was erroneous. I wrote these things to the editor, and he made it a regular article and asked the authors to revise it. 

They did, and the manuscript came back to me. Unfortunately, the mathematical problems were simply ignored by them, and only cosmetic changes were done. I wrote back to the editor about this, and requested him to ask another review with all the clarifications/modifications. But after that journal did not communicate with me. Today, I was surprised to see that the paper has already been published! I went through it, and found that some minor changes that I had suggested (like changes to a figure to make it more informative) have been done, but the main issues that I had raised have been pushed under the carpet. I find this to be a complete insult to the reviewer, and also a kind of scientific dishonesty. I thought of writing to the editor, but I just want to know if something like this is regular, and if it has happened to anyone. If yes, how should I proceed from here? Just shut my mouth and carry on?
EDIT:  The question has been changed since this was written.

Your key misconception is that the editor needs reviewers' permission to publish a paper.  Actually, the decision to publish rests solely with the editor.  

In this case, you disagree with the editor, but we do not have enough information to tell who is correct.  If you think the errors in the paper are important, then once the paper is published you may be able to submit a comment to the journal.  Do not do that before the paper is published, because for most journals you must maintain the confidentiality of peer review.