tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post6239083528778530933..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Acknowledging PriorityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21742640998215222142009-08-25T06:42:35.244-04:002009-08-25T06:42:35.244-04:00The hard intelligence ' scientific, mathematic...The hard intelligence ' scientific, mathematical, calibrated ' is not the same as the soft intelligence of human skills, communication and common sense. Einstein could not remember his phone number, Churchill could not fix a car engine, Bill Gates is celebrated as lacking in human skills; but are any of these people less intelligent in general than the other ?Rebecahttp://www.asiarooms.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-83653018214456592702009-05-16T09:03:00.000-04:002009-05-16T09:03:00.000-04:00Paul:
No, not from Asia.Paul:<br /><br />No, not from Asia.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-29600443078350912912009-05-16T05:14:00.000-04:002009-05-16T05:14:00.000-04:00Anon: Nice one! Jokes aside, it was a purely factu...Anon: Nice one! Jokes aside, it was a purely factual question to which Jeffrey could have replied to unless you are him....<br /><br />Anyhow, last time on a different blog post by Jeffrey, I became aware of a professor from asia who plagiarized entire pieces of work; sending them out to Integers. so I was curious to know whether this time around the person was from asia too.Paul Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-76878876637616798352009-05-15T22:08:00.000-04:002009-05-15T22:08:00.000-04:00Paul Smith,
Your conclusion, even though is quit...Paul Smith, <br /><br />Your conclusion, even though is quite likely to be correct, smells to be arrived at by racist assumptions. The reason the author is more likely to be Asian is that part of the world is more inhabited than anywhere else, not because they have inferior academic ethics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61804986502863861512009-05-09T08:17:00.000-04:002009-05-09T08:17:00.000-04:00Ok. In one of your previous posts you did mention ...Ok. In one of your previous posts you did mention something like this happened ... so I am now curious to know, was the author from Asia ?Paul Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-47237132711757124422009-05-07T06:34:00.000-04:002009-05-07T06:34:00.000-04:00No, not Marks or Dembski. If a paper from Dembski...No, not Marks or Dembski. If a paper from Dembski came in, I would probably have to recuse myself and find another editor, because I wouldn't trust myself to be impartial.<br /><br />Takis: I think you're being too hard on Dembski. He has at least one reasonable paper in a mathematical journal, and judging from preprints I've seen, he is likely to have two more in a journal like <I>IEEE Trans. Info. Theory</I> soon.<br /><br />Anonymous: There's no reason to believe the paper was plagiarized - it was not high quality enough to merit plagiarism.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37700123265109861982009-05-07T00:22:00.000-04:002009-05-07T00:22:00.000-04:00Have you checked whether the paper was plagiarized...Have you checked whether the paper was plagiarized? That could be one explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-35760803382816256482009-05-06T21:52:00.000-04:002009-05-06T21:52:00.000-04:00andrew:
How could it be Dembski? I'm sure the jou...andrew:<br /><br />How could it be Dembski? I'm sure the journal Jeffrey Shallit is talking about is a mathematical journal. Dembski could not have sent a paper in a mathematical journal. He is not a mathematician. He's a religious propagandist. He is not capable of even submitting a mathematical paper in a reputable mathematical journal. I have looked at the articles he writes and his use of mathematics is naive and laughable.Takis Konstantopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675216467783238403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-85041665408204100512009-05-06T13:07:00.000-04:002009-05-06T13:07:00.000-04:00Please tell us it was Marks or Dembski. Please.Please tell us it was Marks or Dembski. Please.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04673652496537383297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-79426319969382987482009-05-06T09:07:00.000-04:002009-05-06T09:07:00.000-04:00This is horrible and dishonest. Instead of the aut...This is horrible and dishonest. Instead of the authors abiding to the other journals' suggestions and acknowledge prior work (which, fair enough, the authors may not have known), they try to resubmit to your journal, trying to do without citations. Horror!<br /><br />I find even milder things than this unacceptable: For instance, trying to maximize one's publications by splitting a paper into two (or three at times) and submitting to different journals. This kind of thing is unhelpful to the reader who does want to read the paper, unhelpful to the mathematical community at large. <br /><br />People who follow the aforementioned practices (and there are many more) have a different utility function than yours. Namely, they try to keep the administrators happy who take into account trivialities such as number of different publications and number of pages. This is why, when we see criteria like these being introduced in universities, we should all be expressing our opinion about them. For they do provide encouragement (to some) for taking paths of least action, just as the example you gave.Takis Konstantopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675216467783238403noreply@blogger.com