Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Goldbach proof by Bichitra Kalita?

Expand Messages
  • WarrenS
    For several (unconvincing) reasons I doubt it. But anyway, Kalita has a web page http://www.aec.ac.in/Uploads/File/faculty/mca/bichitra_kalita.pdf and here is
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 2, 2012
      For several (unconvincing) reasons I doubt it.

      But anyway, Kalita has a web page
      http://www.aec.ac.in/Uploads/File/faculty/mca/bichitra_kalita.pdf

      and here is a sample paper by him (which does not have anything to do with Goldbach,
      but it is illuminating)

      Bichitra Kalita:
      PARTITIONING OF SPECIAL CIRCUITS
      http://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/IJMIE_FEB2012/IJMRA-MIE632.pdf
      Feb 2012 IJMIE Volume 2, Issue 2 ISSN: 2249-0558

      you have to scroll down about 40% of the way down the scroll bar to reach his paper [this
      file is an entire issue].

      Anyway, it is amazing reading this paper.

      You may have heard of the guys who submitted papers made up of random words, generated by neural nets outputting "random journalese," etc -- and those nonsense-papers were nevertheless accepted by certain "respected conferences" after "refereeing" thus proving those conferences were pretty bogus and their main purpose was to collect hefty fees. Well, this sample paper by Kalita is a lot like that.
    • Phil Carmody
      ... International Journal of ............... Already sounds like the bogus conferences who spam sci.math, sci.crypt, comp.compression, etc. .
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 3, 2012
        --- On Wed, 10/3/12, WarrenS <warren.wds@...> wrote:
        > For several (unconvincing) reasons I doubt it.
        >
        > But anyway, Kalita has a web page
        >    http://www.aec.ac.in/Uploads/File/faculty/mca/bichitra_kalita.pdf
        >
        > and here is a sample paper by him (which does not have
        > anything to do with Goldbach, but it is illuminating)
        >
        > Bichitra Kalita:
        > PARTITIONING OF SPECIAL CIRCUITS
        > http://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/IJMIE_FEB2012/IJMRA-MIE632.pdf
        > Feb 2012  IJMIE

        "International Journal of ..............."

        Already sounds like the bogus conferences who spam sci.math, sci.crypt, comp.compression, etc. .

        "............... Management, IT and Engineering"

        Oh, my, yeah, that's the kind of thing. (Do you like my new extra-long ellipses - I learnt that from reading the paper!)

        It describes itself as:
        "A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal"

        Double-blind? So the authors aren't even allowed to know what paper they're writing? That explains the following:

        >       Volume 2, Issue 2     
        >            ISSN: 2249-0558
        >
        > you have to scroll down about 40% of the way down the scroll
        > bar to reach his paper [this file is an entire issue].
        >
        > Anyway, it is amazing reading this paper. 

        Not for someone with eyesight like mine - it's painful!

        > You may have heard of the guys who submitted papers made up
        > of random words, generated by neural nets outputting "random
        > journalese," etc -- and those nonsense-papers were
        > nevertheless accepted by certain "respected conferences"
        > after "refereeing" thus proving those conferences were
        > pretty bogus and their main purpose was to collect hefty
        > fees.  Well, this sample paper by Kalita is a lot like
        > that.

        The first word that came to mind when reading that proof was "WOO!".

        In stereo.

        At least, like the the Markov-generated papers, his references weren't random - almost all of them were his own prior work. And we all know what I think about supporting yourself with your own bootstraps.

        Phil
      • Chris Caldwell
        ... I agree with your assessment of the journal, and assume you know that in this context double blind means the author does not know the referee (usual) and
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 3, 2012
          > It describes itself as:
          >"A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal"
          >Double-blind? So the authors aren't even allowed to know what paper they're writing? That explains the following:

          I agree with your assessment of the journal, and assume you know that in this context double blind means the author does not know the referee (usual) and the referee does not know the author (less so, and actually often hard to do).

          > At least, like the the Markov-generated papers, his references weren't random - almost all of them were his own prior work. And we all know what I think about supporting yourself with your own bootstraps.

          That was my thought--I have never seen an author use his own name so often. I do not think I would be able to do it even as a joke.

          CC
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.